There they go again, misquoting Founders & blasting the Electoral College
- tara
- Nov 5, 2012
- 2 min read
Updated: Nov 8, 2023
In May, I blogged that an LA Times editor had misquoted James Madison, pretending that Madison was opposed to the Electoral College. In the LA Times piece, Madison was taken very badly out of context. Madison’s words were not aimed at the Electoral College; he was writing of his discontent with the back-up election process, the House contingent election.
Now, the anti-Electoral College forces are at it again. This time, they are taking Thomas Jefferson’s words out of context. Thomas Jefferson, it is alleged, called the Electoral College the “ink blot” of the Constitution.
The source of this allegation is a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to George Hay in 1823. When Electoral College opponents quote this letter, it usually looks something like it does on FairVote’s website:
"I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election . . . as the most dangerous blot on our constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit."
Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1823
Here’s the problem. Jefferson was not talking about the Electoral College. Just as Madison had, he was instead discussing the House contingent election. His full quote appears below, with the (often omitted) text in bold:
I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the legislature voting by states as the most dangerous blot in our constn, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit, and give us a pope & anti-pope.
The full letter is reprinted here.
The phrase “legislature voting by states” is a reference to the House contingent election. This procedure is a back-up election procedure that is used when no presidential candidate obtains a majority of electoral votes. It’s been used only twice in our nation’s history. Thomas Jefferson was a candidate in one of those two elections. In that election, Jefferson was tied with Aaron Burr, the man who was supposed to be the vice presidential candidate. Burr refused to bow out gracefully, as he should have, and some congressmen tried to take advantage of the situation. The House eventually chose Jefferson, but it took 36 votes before Jefferson obtained a majority of state delegations.
Hmmmm. Given this history, I wonder why Jefferson didn’t like that process so much?
Wonder which Founder will be taken out of context next time.
This was a https://alphadentalexcellence.com/ fascinating historical overview with clear explanations. The context helped make a complex topic easier to understand. I’ve seen similar historical breakdowns on an alphadentalexcellence-based blog.
This was a sharp and well-argued piece. You did an excellent job separating myth from historical record without oversimplifying the issue. It reminded me of a constitutional analysis I read on a https://thegamecaps.com/ legal review blog that approached the topic with similar care. Thanks for such a clear and thoughtful perspective.
This was a sharp and well-argued piece. I appreciated how you clarified historical context without oversimplifying the issue. It reminded me https://www.aerospectny.com/ of a detailed analysis I read on a review blog that also explored how misinterpretations shape modern debates.
Really enjoyed reading this post — the way you clarified common misquotes and dug into the historical context was both thoughtful and educational. It’s refreshing to see history explained with such precision and care. I recently came across a discussion on https://www.phonydiploma.com/ that also touched on how sources can shape our understanding of key ideas, which offered another angle worth thinking about. Thanks for sharing this insightful perspective!
Really enjoyed reading this post — your clear explanation of how quotes from the Founders often get taken out of context made a topic that could be dry feel engaging and insightful. I especially liked how you dug into the original sources to clarify what Madison and Jefferson actually meant, which added real depth to the discussion. It reminded me of the value of careful interpretation I saw in another https://grandoaksorthodontics.com/ review discussion I came across recently — different subject, but the same emphasis on digging deeper rather than accepting surface claims. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis