Essay 15: On The Federal Constitution – Volume 1 Part 1 Chapter 8 Sub Chapters 11-14

, , , ,
Guest Essayist: Tara Ross

Our Commissioners | Office of the Texas Governor | Greg Abbott

Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner

The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 120 (starting at the heading “On The Election of the President”) through 130 (stopping at the heading “On The Federal Courts”) of this edition of Democracy in America.

American presidential elections have grown increasingly contentious in recent years—to say the least! Too many mistakenly blame the Electoral College, but Alexis de Tocqueville’s classic work, Democracy in America, offers a different perspective.

Indeed, his observations about American society in the early 1800s also included warnings that Americans should have heeded—but didn’t. No wonder presidential elections have become so acrimonious.

De Tocqueville, of course, lived at a time when countries around the world were (at least trying to) shake off monarchies, replacing them with elected leaders. Perhaps it’s unsurprising, then, that Democracy in America alludes to the change. A monarchy, with its relatively infrequent change in leadership, at least provides stability. Can a nation elect new leaders once every few years without too much disruption?

In general, De Tocqueville believes that elective systems undermine a nation’s stability, but he notes that this danger has been mitigated in America because presidential power is limited. To the contrary, “the preponderant power resides in the national representation as a whole,” De Tocqueville observes.

The modern American presidency, of course, looks nothing like the one that De Tocqueville studied in the 1830s.

A powerful President, De Tocqueville writes, makes for dangerous election seasons. One human being clawing for power is surrounded by others, also clawing for a piece of that power. “It is clear that the more prerogatives the executive power has,” De Tocqueville explains, “the greater the lure is; the more the ambition of the pretenders is excited, the more also it finds support in a crowd of [those with] secondary ambitions who hope to share in power after their candidate has triumphed.

America during De Tocqueville’s lifetime didn’t have that problem. To the contrary, he marveled, “[n]o one has yet been encountered who cares to risk his honor and life to become president of the United States, because the president has only a temporary, limited, and dependent power.” The same applies to those who might otherwise want to help a candidate achieve the presidency. “The reason for this is simple,” De Tocqueville concludes, “having come to the head of the government, he can distribute to his friends neither much power nor much wealth nor much glory, and his influence in the state is too feeble for the factions to see their success or their ruin in his elevation to power.

A too-powerful President can create other dangers, too, because the workings and direction of government become too dependent on a single individual. “The vaster the place that executive power occupies in the direction of affairs, the greater and more necessary its habitual action is,” De Tocqueville concludes, “and the more dangerous such a state of things is. Among a people that has contracted the habit of being governed by the executive power and, even more so, of being administered by it, election could not fail to produce a profound disturbance.

An election is inherently “a period of national crisis,” De Tocqueville thinks, because everyone becomes overly focused on the approaching election. The interests of the country fall by the wayside. Nevertheless, things are even worse when a President runs for re-election.

He recognizes the dilemma facing the delegates to the Constitutional Convention: If a President is doing a good job, then Americans should have the option to re-elect him. On the other hand, De Tocqueville wonders if the dangers don’t outweigh the benefits.

Intrigue and corruption are vices natural to elective governments,” he concludes. “But when the head of state can be reelected, the vices spread indefinitely . . . . [the incumbent] borrows the force of the government for his own use. . . . the care of the government becomes a secondary interest to him; his principal interest is his election.

In an interesting twist, De Tocqueville remains impressed by the “mode of election” for American Presidents, recognizing that the Electoral College “express[es] the real will of the people.” He notes the difficulty in getting a majority to support any candidate “at the first stroke,” especially given the size and nature of the country. Electing a special body (the Electoral College) to make this decision struck De Tocqueville as an efficient process for reaching agreement on a candidate. It would also better reflect the will of the people than legislative selection.

America’s presidential election system, he concludes, “[is] a happy combination that reconciles the respect that is owed to the will of the people with the rapidity of execution and the guarantees of order that the interest of the state requires.”

In short, Democracy in America focuses on two factors that have historically made American presidential elections work: The limited nature of executive power and the structure of the Electoral College. The first of these has been severely undermined, and the second is under attack.

De Tocqueville would surely be unsurprised to learn that elections have turned ugly in recent decades.


Tara Ross is a retired lawyer and the author of several books about the Electoral College, including Why We Need the Electoral College (Regnery Gateway).

Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.

5 replies
  1. Joe Buford
    Joe Buford says:

    I agree with your thoughts on the EC.
    I would love to get your opinion on Reynolds v. Sims, the STATE mandate of apportioning the STATE SENATES by population. This portion of R v. S seems to me to be BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Until this is overturned, the rural areas in each state will continue to be disenfranchised!

    Reply
    • Harry Stumpf
      Harry Stumpf says:

      I agree with your analysis, and I like the model provided by the Constitution. One legislative body represents the people, and one represents the states. This model enfranchises rural states in the senate.

      A state following this model could have a state legislature to represent the people and a state senate to represent the counties, each county getting the same number of senators. Apportioning a state senate by population does not follow this model and will disenfranchise low population counties.

      Reply
    • Cathy Gillespie
      Cathy Gillespie says:

      Thank you for your comment and participation! You are the winner of this week’s free copy of De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America book drawing! Please email us your preferred mailing address to orders@constitutingamerica.org and we will send you your book! We are glad you are enjoying our study:
      The Genius of America: A Journey Into Our Republic
      A Study on Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy In America

      Please keep reading and commenting! We value your input!

      Reply
  2. Harry Stumpf
    Harry Stumpf says:

    De Tocqueville says that “America’s presidential election system … reconciles the respect that is owed to the will of the people with the rapidity of execution and the guarantees of order that the interest of the state requires.” But these benefits are in short supply in modern elections.

    The “respect that is owed to the will of the people” is questioned by those who question the integrity of elections. Also, “rapidity of execution” clearly doesn’t exist. And “guarantees of order”, even expectation of order, are gone with warnings of the end of democracy. What are we doing wrong?

    Reply
  3. Barbara Zakszewski
    Barbara Zakszewski says:

    De Tocqueville was centuries ahead of his time. Elections are certainly periods of national crisis. The entire focus are on the candidates, we scarcely know what else is going on. And the incumbents disappear into the background. Elections also seem to throw us into chaos as we are doing this election cycle. Everything is reactionary. The electoral college seems to restore order at least to the winning candidate and party. Sincerely praying that the United States does not descend into madness on November 6th.

    Reply

Join the discussion! Post your comments below.

Your feedback and insights are welcome.
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *