Here the eminent English political scientist Walter Bagehot,
writing in 1867, compares the American Electoral College to the British House
of Commons. His thoughts are again timely
given Hillary Clinton’s success with the popular vote in U.S. election on
November 8 – and Donald Trump’s triumph in the Electoral College vote.
Generally speaking, in
an electioneering country (I mean in a country full of political life, and used
to the manipulation of popular institutions), the election of candidates to
elect candidates is a farce. The
Electoral College of America is so. It
was intended that the deputies when assembled should exercise a real discretion,
and by independent choice select the president.
But the primary electors take too much interest. They only elect a deputy to vote for Mr.
Lincoln or Mr. Breckenridge, and the deputy only takes a ticket, and drops that
ticket in an urn. He never chooses or
thinks of choosing. He is but a
messenger – a transmitter; the real discretion is in those who chose him – who chose
him because they knew what he would do.
It is true that the British House of
Commons is subject to the same influences.
Members are mostly, perhaps, elected because they will vote for a
particular ministry, rather than for purely legislative reasons. But – and here is the capital distinction –
the functions of the House of Commons are important and continuous. It
does not, like the Electoral College in the United States, separate when it has
elected its ruler; it watches, legislates, seats and unseats ministries from
day to day. Accordingly it is a real
electoral body.[1]
[1]
Walter Bagehot, The English Constitution
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday/ Dolphin Books, nd), pp. 80,81.
