The title basically says it all, but I'd like to expand a bit on how I came about this question.
I was looking for some primary sources to look at the campaign rhetoric of early U.S. presidential candidates. In particular, I was curious to see how they campaigned back in the days when the electoral college was actually, you know, a college of electors, rather than the merely symbolic system of today.
I was intrigued to see some campaign rhetoric from 1804 directed at the electors of the state of Pennsylvania, rallying them around supporting the Democratic Republican ticket, of which Thomas Jefferson was, of course, the top.
It then occurred to me: Is it possible that the electoral college system fueled the partisan divide in early U.S. elections? Hear me out here — It seems plausible to me that if presidential candidates were not dependent on swaying individuals, but instead relied on packing party loyalists to the electoral college, that it would create an incentive—or perhaps even a necessity—for their political machines to rally support for their parties, as much or more so than for the presidential candidates themselves.
Does this hypothesis have any legs? What does the scholarship tell us about the relationship between the electoral college system and the rise of party politics in America?
This may be a valid area of study. The founders certainly envisaged the electoral college as a place where each individual member would come to his own conclusion about who was the best candidate, and the specific provisions surrounding electors was to make them "free from any sinister bias." (Hamilton, Fed. 68) By 1816 the electors had become rubber stamps, simply approving whomever their state legislators wanted for president. This was contrary to what the founders wished for, as they wanted it be a gathering of the most able men in the nation coming together to rationally decide what was best for the country. They were supposed to take the views of their state on board before making a rational choice. The founders seemed to be imagining the electoral college almost to replace the constitutional conventions, as the place where key decisions were made.
If we look at the election of 1796, the first 'real' election in the new United States however, we see a nation already divided. At this point all electors received two votes. The Federalists, led by John Adams advocated for Adams and Pinckney, a South Carolinian. The Republicans wanted Jefferson and Burr, a New Yorker. Adams beat Jefferson by 71 votes to 68 and the voting fell almost completely along sectional lines. Adams took New England, New York and New Jersey, Jefferson took the South. Despite the efforts of both parties to appeal across the nation, the old allegiances of north vs south took over.
After a less than stellar term in office Adams was defeated by Jefferson in 1800 in what was seen a triumph over neary tyranny. Jefferson took to calling it the "Revolution of 1800" and the New York American Citizen wrote "Republicans Rejoice! Our Country is saved from the fangs of an Usurper." Slight hyperbole, but the sentiment is clear, partisanship and factionalism would now drive American politics forward.
I would argue that the initial idea of the electoral college (and many other US political institutions) were created in a time of political harmony. Under Washington, who was deliberately non-partisan, these noble ideas appeared to work. But once Washington stepped down and the true dogfight of politics began, these institutions began to be used to promote partisan ideas. The increased importance of the electoral college then compared to now may make its influence appear inflated.
Your source is indicative of the growing nature of partisanship in US politics at the time, than manifested itself in almost every institution, not just the electoral college.
Foner, Give Me Liberty! (W.W. Norton, 2014)
Davies and Zelizer, America at the Ballot Box : Elections and Political History (UPenn Press, 2015)
Edwards, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America (Yale, 2011)