As a friend, Jason Tucker, pointed out to me, the Electoral College worked exactly as it was intended to do—and he’s right, so really I should have titled that last post, “The Electoral College Worked, and Failed Democracy.”

While I maintain the EC should go, there is another method of revising a flawed system: to force states to apportion their electors, as Maine and Nebraska wisely do, rather than us a “winner-take-all” allotment scenario. That would bring us closer to a direct democracy. The original framers’ fear of democracy, as Madison put it, was that majority “factions” would ruin the country. But this voting process has allowed minority “factions” to ruin the country. Madison’s intention was to keep a person who didn’t know what he was doing out of the office, and obviously that failed. If 51% of the people vote for a racist, misogynist, know-nothing, cartoon of a human being, so be it. That’s the will of the majority of Americans. It’s fucking awful, but there it is. However, that is not the case—the majority of Americans do not want this man to be president, and therefore the current Electoral College process has bankrupted our democracy, bankrupted like Trump bankrupted his companies six times.

While writing this, I came across yet another method of altering the EC to align with the popular vote that I had never heard of: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. A pledge by states to dedicate their electors to the winner of the national vote regardless of who “won” the state. I’m happy to see this being pointed out and shared by other friends (like Juliet Williams). 

By continuing to allow our current method of selecting our president, we are continuing to be beholden to White Southern slaveholders—yes, we are actually letting slavery still rule the country. This is unacceptable. The system that created the Electoral College (not called that by the Constitutional Convention), was created in large part because the less populous though larger-in-area southern states were afraid of losing out to the more populous northern states, and losing their rights to own slaves. So they forced a compromise that would allow them to label each one of their slaves, which they considered their property, as 3/5 of a person, and contribute that number to their state’s total population. So the larger population figure would allow them more electors. But most of the people making up that population figure could not vote, as they were otherwise considered property, not people.

 

jmgray