Partner
Power  /  Explainer

The Debate That Gave Us the Electoral College

John Dickinson's contributions to the Constitution continue to reverberate today.

At the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787, discussions about how to choose the President were contentious. Because of the winding road the delegates took to reach the solution, the origins of the Electoral College are usually described as being either about the delegates’ distrust of the people or as a means to perpetuate slavery.

Actually, the Electoral College was about both and more. Examining the perspective of John Dickinson, a delegate from Delaware and an architect of the Electoral College who neither distrusted the people nor supported slavery, sheds light on the Framers’ intentions and how we might proceed at this moment in American politics.

Dickinson had extensive political experience before attending the Constitutional Convention. He had served as a legislator, member of Congress, and governor for Pennsylvania and Delaware. He wrote more for the Founding than any other figure, including the first draft of America’s first constitution, the Articles of Confederation (1776). He also advocated women’s rights and was an abolitionist. By 1787, he had freed all those he had enslaved and attempted to secure passage of an abolition bill in Delaware.

The overarching goal of the Convention was to balance the freedom of the people with the power of the government. Delegates sought to limit both licentiousness (abuse of liberty) by the people and the potential for tyranny (abuse of power) by the government. Dickinson described this goal as protecting the worthy—those who observed the laws—from the “passions” of both the people and their servants, including the President.

Several other concerns shaped the debate on the Presidency. Delegates wanted to involve the states in the workings of the federal government, to ensure that the most populous states did not overpower those with fewer voters, to maintain the separation of legislative and executive powers, and to determine the role the people should have in Presidential elections.

Balancing liberty and power was especially challenging when it came to the executive branch. Safeguards against a tyrannical President could come in many forms. In addition to advocating impeachment for misbehavior and prosecution for criminal acts, on which all delegates agreed, Dickinson wanted the President to be both weak and popularly elected.

He preferred a plural executive (more than one President), like the three-man Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, over which he himself had presided for three years. He liked that there were “independent spirits” checking him. But the Convention decided on a singular executive, despite some delegates, including Dickinson, believing that it could plant the seed of monarchy.