# The Framers’ Vision: A Case for Ranked Choice Voting Through Constitutional Originalism In contemporary political discourse, “strict constructionism” and “originalism” are often invoked to resist electoral reform. However, a careful examination of the Framers’ original design for presidential elections reveals that our current party-dominated system may represent a greater departure from their vision than many proposed reforms—particularly ranked choice voting. ## The Original Design: Wisdom in Simplicity The Constitution’s original framework for presidential selection embodied several core principles: 1. The president should be chosen based on individual merit rather than partisan loyalty 2. The second-most preferred candidate should serve as vice president 3. Electoral decisions should reflect broad consensus rather than narrow factional interests This system effectively created an early form of ranked choice voting, where electors cast two votes, producing a president and vice president who had demonstrated broad appeal across the entire electorate. ## The Departure from Original Intent The rise of political parties—entities the Framers explicitly warned against—fundamentally undermined this careful design. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, represented the first major capitulation to partisan politics by separating presidential and vice-presidential selection. The 20th Amendment further entrenched party machinery in the succession process. These changes, while pragmatic responses to immediate crises, marked significant departures from the Framers’ vision of non-partisan, merit-based selection. In essence, we abandoned their sophisticated consensus-building mechanism in favor of a crude, faction-driven alternative they would have opposed. ## The Case for Constitutional Restoration True constitutional originalism would suggest reconsidering these partisan-enabling amendments. The Framers’ original design, with its emphasis on broad consensus and ranked preferences, aligns remarkably well with modern ranked choice voting systems. By repealing or modifying the 12th and 20th Amendments in favor of ranked choice voting, we could: 1. Restore the Framers’ emphasis on individual merit over party loyalty 2. Revive their sophisticated consensus-building mechanisms 3. Combat the “mischiefs of faction” they sought to prevent 4. Preserve the practical benefits of their original design while adapting it to modern electoral realities ## Beyond Partisan Gridlock The Framers understood that sustainable democracy requires mechanisms that force compromise and consensus. Their original system elegantly achieved this by ensuring the top two vote-getters would work together in government. Modern ranked choice voting could restore this wisdom while addressing contemporary challenges. Consider how ranked choice voting embodies core constitutional principles: - It encourages candidates to appeal broadly rather than to narrow bases - It reduces the power of factions by requiring majority support - It promotes deliberative decision-making over partisan reflexes ## Conclusion True originalism requires more than selective reverence for the Constitution’s text—it demands understanding and honoring the Framers’ underlying principles. Our current system, shaped by party-enabling amendments, represents a greater deviation from their vision than ranked choice voting would be. By embracing electoral reform through an originalist lens, we can restore the sophisticated consensus-building mechanisms the Framers intended while adapting them to modern needs. The path forward may require us to look backward—not to blindly replicate the past, but to recover wisdom we have lost. In ranked choice voting, we may find a way to honor both the letter and spirit of the Framers’ vision for American democracy.