Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

The New Hampshire vs. Nevada Relay Race

November 30, 2011 by  

The big deal over the New Hampshire primary election and Nevada caucuses would be laughable if it weren’t so sad. Does anyone care about how the Framers of the Constitution designed for the President of the United States to be selected? We are so far gone that it is doubtful that we can even have an intelligent conversation with anyone in the media, elected officials, those running for office, political science professors, Constitutional law professors, Tea Party leaders or any of the electorate to discuss what the Framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind.

The Framers designed an ingenious system which was not based on party politics, campaigning, campaign promises, State primary elections leapfrogging each other, party national conventions, billion-dollar beauty pageants or even direct election by the people. It was a multistep, indirect method, using independent-thinking electors in the first step of the process.

The President was not the “King of the People” or the “King of the Party,” but the President of the United States.

The function of the Presidential electors was to identify (nominate) the best possible Presidential individuals (statesmen) based on their merit and service to their country, their States or their local governments (past performance, not campaign promises or self-aggrandizing). The elector’s job was to name (nominate) two outstanding individuals each (not campaign for one or promise his vote to one or to a party). The elector’s assigned task was to take place at the beginning of the selection process, not as a rubber-stamp procedure after a multiyear, multimillion-dollar campaign circus across the Nation.

After the official signed, certified and sealed nominations were tallied in a joint session of Congress, the five highest-ranking individuals (who were then candidates) would be voted on by the States in the House of Representatives. Each State had one vote and requiring a majority of the States to determine a final choice. (Talk about New Hampshire and Nevada having clout then! Their votes would be equal with California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc.) Talk about States’ rights and State sovereignty!

The secret is that Constitutionally, the State Legislatures could take back control of the Presidential election process again now, if they wanted to do so. But because the members of the State Legislatures also get into office by party politics, it would be political suicide to try to take back the process from the parties.

Early on, Constitutional government was destroyed by party politics. The first pillar to fall was the executive branch. The ratification of the 12th Amendment institutionalized party usurpation, the games they were already playing.

An in-depth analysis of the original Electoral College system can be found in the concise volume “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College.” The Framers created a far superior system for placing statesmen, not politicians, in the White House.  That system has been ignored for more than two centuries.

Education is the first step to enlightening the hearts and minds of the people to understand the purposes and benefits of the structure of government that the Framers designed. However, we will probably have to be beaten up a lot more before we are willing to give up our political party or give up our supposed “right” to democracy (popular vote) before we will be willing to restore the complex Constitutional representative republic that the Framers established — a system that promoted freedom and prosperity practically overnight. The formula for freedom is found in the structure of the original U.S. Constitution.

–Carolyn Alder

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “The New Hampshire vs. Nevada Relay Race”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • Daniel

    This article, quite frankly, is one of the most ridiculous I have ever read. The Twelfth Amendment is part of the Constitution, and thus, BY DEFINITION, our current system is Constitutional. Saying “Constitutional government was destroyed” is like saying “Constitutional slavery was destroyed.” The Constitution was explicitly designed to be changeable. Thinking that changes to the Constitution are somehow unconstitutional is quite possibly the most absurd, illogical position on earth.

    • Vigilant

      “Thinking that changes to the Constitution are somehow unconstitutional is quite possibly the most absurd, illogical position on earth.”

      You may want to rethink that comment. The 13th through 15th Amendments, as I recall, weren’t ratified by the requisite number of states since the South was left out of the process.

      Moreover, there’s a considerable doubt that the 16th Amendment was ever ratified (one state short, I believe).

  • Carolyn Alder

    Slavery could have been dealt with without a war and without an amendment. Congress could have dealt with the conflicts and resolved the Slavery issues after 1808.

    The first 10 Amendments, “The Bill of (individual) Rights, did not amend the original intent of the Constitution. They clarified the restraints placed on the national level of government and they safeguarded the rights of individuals.

    Yes, the 12th Amendment is part of the Constitution, however, it changed the unique process the Framers designed to select a President, therefore it changed the form of government. The process was already being usurped by political parties and the 12th Amendment institutionalized what they were already doing.

    The Presidential Electors were to be independent of government and independent thinking individuals who would nominate two outstanding individuals based on past performance–not campaign promises. From the top 5 nominees, the States had an equal voice in the final selection.

    “Our current system”, the way we are doing it, is NOT constitutional in that the process today does not follow the described method in the 12th Amendment either.

    I stand by the fact that party politics hijacked the Constitution as established in 1878 and the “Bill of Rights” 1891. The Constitution did not implement “Checks” (bridle usurpation) for political parties and “Balances” (representation of all interests) for political parties.

    The really sad fact is that nobody seems to understand the Framers’ beautiful system design of a complex constitutional representative republic.

    • Carolyn Alder

      Oops, 1787 Constitution and 1791 Bill of Rights! I could not find an EDIT key.

  • Vigilant

    webguest, methinks you have left out a rather important point: the electors are themselves elected. There happens to be a reasonable expectation that the electors will generally follow the expressed will of the people.

    Now you may wish for “independent-thinking” aristocrats to elect the President, but that’s not how it works. And you may refer to the election of 1876, where backroom tit-for-tat political wheeling and dealing put Hayes in office over Tilden, even though Tilden had a majority of the popular vote. To say that electors are politically independent is like saying that Obama is a good president.

    The electoral system will never die, as there are a sufficient number of small states to squelch any Constitutional Amendment to make the process more democratic. The system (which you also failed to mention) favors the small states over the large ones.

    Notwithstanding the above, I shudder to think how bad off we would be if the popular vote was used and Gore had won the election. The rub is that it can work both ways.

    • Carolyn Alder

      The way that the Presidential Electors “were to be” chosen was left up entirely to the State Legislatures. Several methods were initially used, including combinations of “appointment” by the legislatures and “election” by the people, by various methods. We enumerate examples in our book, “The Evolution and Destruction of the Original Electoral College”.

      Today, the States have turned the appointment of the Presidential Electors over to which ever political party wins in the State. Those Electors are duty bound, and most by state statute, to vote for the party that chose them. There is no such thing as “independent” Elector today. They are called “unfaithful” and fined or resigned and another put in their place, if they do not vote for their party choice.

      (Another thing to be noted is that all of this (rubber-stamp vote by the Electors) is after several years of campaigning and campaign promises. Originally the Electors assigned task was at the beginning of the selection process.)

      The National Popular Vote Compact wants the States to turn “their” Presidential Elector votes over to whoever wins the popular vote nation wide. Another giant step in the wrong direction. Another fallacy is of the NPV, is that the destination of Electoral Votes belongs to the State. The State’s prerogative was to determine how the Electors were to be chosen.

      Again, the only Federal Office originally elected directly by the people was the House of Representatives.

      Again, the USA was designed to be a complex constitutional representative republic, not a democracy.

      Again, the whole system was hijacked by the usurpation of party politics. (Much earlier than 1876 as you site.)

  • Vigilant

    “Slavery could have been dealt with without a war and without an amendment. Congress could have dealt with the conflicts and resolved the Slavery issues after 1808.”

    I’m afraid that comment is rather simplistic when dealing with an issue as complex as slavery. Most certainly they could have dealt with the conflicts, but the fact is that they didn’t.

    The Founders could not have created a constitutional republic to include the Southern states, had it not been for the three fifths compromise. This primarily anti-slavery measure was designed to afford the south representation in Congress but to chide them at the same time for attempting to count all slaves as “persons.”

    And to say that a Constitutional amendment was not necessary is to deny the fact that the Constitution did not classify Tories, slaves, Native Americans or “Jews, Turks and Infidels” as citizens.

    It is abundantly clear that southern states were not about to give slaves the rights of citizenship, even after a terribly destructive war of their own making.

    The 14th Amendment created for the emancipated slaves a class of citizenship previously unheard of: “citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” All other citizens are citizens of their state and not of the U.S.A. Constitutional law is clear on this.

    The Founders were aware that it would take future generations to resolve the issue, and they placed their hopes, if not their beliefs, in the government to resolve it without war.

  • Vigilant

    To wish away political parties is to tilt at windmills. It’s a lot of baggage, and it’s corrupt and self-serving, but if you can find out where the Constitution prohibits it, tell me.

    De Tocqueville “predicted the violence of party spirit and the judgment of the wise subordinated to the prejudices of the ignorant.” (Wikipedia)

    That being said, the dynamics of partisanship are a part of our culture, and, unsavory as that may be to elitist, are likely to remain with us for the duration.



      • Vigilant

        No argument there, Raymond.

    • s c

      Vigilant, while the Constitution is probably the greatest document ever written by the hand of man, it is not comprehensive. No such document can ever exist.
      I believe the brightest of the Founders (they warned us against parties) were of the opinion that they gave us their best effort(s). It was up to all later generations to heed the advice of the Founders.
      Perhaps they felt so strongly about ‘parties’ that they hoped later generations would understand why parties are so destructive and this is why it was not included as an obvious part of the Constitution.
      The Founders were right in their warning against political parties. I take it to mean that the words of the Founders became a self-fulfilling prophecy. They warned us not to create or nourish such a system. The results have done nothing but create havoc and make it possible for people of low character to infest and rot our nation. It can be said that America has reaped what it has sown.
      Political parties pull America this way and that.
      Parties divide America. They will never unite America. Once posers are elected, it is too difficult to get rid of them.
      Parties are anti-standards. Without consistent standards, no nation can endure. Once a party system is installed, odds are that a nation will have automatically sealed its own fate. We are very close to the final proof.

      • Vigilant

        s c,

        You’re correct about the Founders’ publicly-stated distaste for political partisanship, but it turned out that what they said and what they did were two different things.

        Washington was very vocal about the dangers of party strife during his administration, and that was most likely why he appointed cabinet members with differing points of view.

        Ironically, the stage was set for political parties even before the new American government was seated by the Founders themselves. The Federalist Papers and the resultant Anti-Federalist sentiments were primarily expressed by Hamilton and Jefferson respectively.

        Differences of opinion on how the new Republic was to operate are clearly outlined by Madison in his detailed notes during the Constitutional convention. And Madison himself changed his political views from Federalist to anti-Federalist over time. The Bill of Rights itself is properly seen as a bow to anti-Federalist concerns over the powers of a central government.

        Adams was so averse to party labeling that he rejected being called a Federalist even though he was supported by that faction. And Washington’s views were decidedly Federalist although he claimed no party loyalty.

        The dirty tricks employed by the backers of both Jefferson and Adams led to Adams becoming a one-term president and ushered in a decades-long disaffection between the two giants who had been close friends prior to the political chicanery.

        So, while the Founders may have publicly disdained political partisanship, they were amongst the first to violate their own warnings.

        • s c

          Vigilant, I’m guessing that if the study of history survives long enough, the main distinction between the Founding Fathers and this generation (circa 2011) will be seen in the fact that the Founding Fathers didn’t hesitate to take on the Brits and defeat the scum in battle.
          We, on the other hand, have an identification problem is in not seeing who the current ‘Brits’ really are. I don’t see it as any coincidence that the current poser in the W H has created a situation in which another civil war (race war or whatever you want to call it) is a distinct possibility.
          George Washington, I believe, was a nation uniter. The airhead in the W H is anything but a uniter. Ergo, he’s a puppet’s puppet or quite a world-class facsimile. This is the first time we’ve ever had a combination of Lenin, Marx, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and even worse all in the same defective ‘package,’ Vigilant.

  • http://ape tyron wliie littledick

    the democrap party is satan=queers,lesbos,anti-god people,unborn baby killers,socialist,negros(78% of crime/drain on social programs) tax and spend it on me basterds,ileagal wet-backs,transvesdikes

  • Buck

    The United Socialist States of America cannot be expected to look like the old United States of America .

  • Kevin Beck

    If we want to keep this stupid Primary and Caucus system, then I propose that New Hampshire repeal its bizarre stipulation that it has to cast the first primary votes each season, and that the states rotate amongst themselves each time. Maybe do it alphabetically; I don’t know. I just don’t see a reason that there has to be some protocol followed every four years that gives four states rights above all others in the casting of primary votes.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.