Federalist No. 68

Federalist No. 68 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, published on March 12, 1788, under the pseudonym "Publius." It is the sixty-eighth installment of The Federalist Papers, a series written to advocate for the ratification of the United States Constitution. In this essay, Hamilton defends the unique method for electing the President of the United States as outlined in Article II, arguing that the Electoral College is designed to select a leader of distinguished character through a deliberative, state-based process, thereby insulating the election from the dangers of demagoguery and foreign interference.

Historical context and authorship

Federalist No. 68 was composed during the intense ratification debates following the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Authored by Alexander Hamilton, a leading Federalist and delegate from New York, the essay was part of a broader campaign to persuade the citizens of New York to ratify the proposed Constitution. Alongside James Madison and John Jay, Hamilton wrote under the shared pseudonym "Publius" for publications like the Independent Journal and the New York Packet. The immediate political context involved countering arguments from Anti-Federalists, who criticized the new frame of government as elitist and prone to monarchical tendencies, particularly in the executive branch. The design of the Electoral College was a novel compromise between election by Congress and direct popular vote, intended to balance the interests of both large and small states like Virginia and Delaware.

Summary of arguments

Hamilton opens Federalist No. 68 by declaring the mode of electing the President of the United States as "almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure." His central thesis is that the Electoral College process is excellently conceived to ensure a qualified, virtuous candidate ascends to the office. He argues that the appointment of electors by each state's legislature allows for a selection made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities required for the office. Hamilton contends this intermediate body guards against "tumult and disorder" and minimizes the risk of "cabal" and "corruption." He places particular emphasis on the security of the process against foreign influence, stating that the "desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils" could more easily target a populace than a small, temporary body of informed electors. The essay concludes that this mechanism provides a "moral certainty" that the presidency will seldom fall to any man not endowed with "the requisite qualifications."

Analysis of the Electoral College mechanism

Hamilton’s analysis meticulously breaks down the safeguards embedded in the Electoral College system. He explains that electors meet in their respective states, not in a central location, to prevent "heats and ferments" that might arise from a single national gathering. This decentralized structure, he argues, makes it exceedingly difficult for any faction or foreign power to coordinate a scheme to manipulate the outcome. The requirement for a majority of electoral votes, and the contingency election in the House of Representatives if no majority is achieved, are presented as further filters to ensure a broad consensus. Hamilton explicitly rejects direct election by the people, fearing it would excite public passions and elevate candidates with "talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity." Instead, he champions the deliberative judgment of the electors, whom he envisions as a select group of citizens possessing superior discernment, akin to the role of intermediaries in systems like the Holy Roman Empire but uniquely adapted to a republican context.

Influence and contemporary relevance

The arguments in Federalist No. 68 have profoundly influenced the understanding and defense of the Electoral College throughout American history. Its reasoning was cited during pivotal events such as the contingent election of 1800 and the contentious election of 1876. The essay remains a primary source for originalist interpretations of the Presidential election clause. In modern debates, proponents of the Electoral College frequently echo Hamilton’s concerns about the dangers of direct democracy and the importance of federalism, arguing the system protects the interests of smaller states and requires a president to build a geographically broad coalition. Critics, however, engage with Hamilton’s assumptions in the context of phenomena like faithless electors and the disparities in voter influence between states like Wyoming and California. The essay's warnings about foreign interference have gained renewed salience following events like the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.

Criticisms and scholarly interpretation

Scholarly interpretation of Federalist No. 68 often centers on the gap between Hamilton’s idealized vision and the historical operation of the Electoral College. Critics, from early Anti-Federalists to modern political scientists, argue the system has failed to function as a deliberative body of independent elites, instead becoming a rubber-stamp for the popular vote within each state due to the rise of political parties and winner-take-all laws. The development of the party ticket system by the era of Andrew Jackson fundamentally transformed the elector's role. Historians like Akhil Reed Amar have noted that the framers, including Hamilton, did not anticipate the rapid emergence of stable national parties. Furthermore, the essay’s arguments are sometimes scrutinized for their tension with Madisonian pluralism and for justifying a system that has, in several elections such as 1876, 1888, 2000, and 2016, awarded the presidency to a candidate who lost the national popular vote, leading to ongoing debates about its democratic legitimacy.

Category:The Federalist Papers Category:1788 documents Category:Alexander Hamilton