The usual suspects . . .
. . . have weighed in on abolishing the Electoral College, namely, America's "newspaper of record," the New York Times. In an editorial today entitled "A Really Modest Proposal," the Times proposes something that is not modest at all.
The editorial suggests that direct popular vote for the president is desirable over the Electoral College system because more voters would be treated to campaign visits by the candidates, rather than just those whose states can tip either direction. The Times wholly ignores the original intent of the system -- to give the states as political bodies a voice in Washington politics.
The Times even goes so far as to implicitly criticize the makeup of the United States Senate, with equal representation from each state: "[Abolishing the Electoral College] would be a small acknowledgement that the United States really does believe in one person one vote, even though the United States Senate allots the same quota of two seats to a state with fewer than half a million people and to a state with 34 million." The editorial presumes that direct democracy is preferable to the republic created by the Constitution. In other words, the Times is now on record for majority rule.
But wait a minute. A majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage. A majority of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion. A majority of Americans support "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A majority of Americans are not troubled by references to God in the public square. If the Times now supports all of these positions, a logical extension of its "one person, one vote" argument, then the world truly has turned upside-down.
The editorial really makes no sense when compared to previous positions the Times has taken on that same page. The paper has argued, rightly in some instances, that the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of minorities from being subject to the whims of the majority. But when it comes to the EC, that goes out the window.
The Times simply doesn't get it. The states are sovereign entities, joined together by the Constitution into a federal republic. The states elect the president. That is the constitutional design. Whenever constitutional amendments are proposed, the paper is quick to say that the Constitution is not something to be lightly tinkered with. But when it comes to altering the fundamental structure of the Constitution, the Times doesn't hesitate to support such a radical step without question. Today it makes an intellectually vacuous and historically ignorant argument.
The editorial suggests that direct popular vote for the president is desirable over the Electoral College system because more voters would be treated to campaign visits by the candidates, rather than just those whose states can tip either direction. The Times wholly ignores the original intent of the system -- to give the states as political bodies a voice in Washington politics.
The Times even goes so far as to implicitly criticize the makeup of the United States Senate, with equal representation from each state: "[Abolishing the Electoral College] would be a small acknowledgement that the United States really does believe in one person one vote, even though the United States Senate allots the same quota of two seats to a state with fewer than half a million people and to a state with 34 million." The editorial presumes that direct democracy is preferable to the republic created by the Constitution. In other words, the Times is now on record for majority rule.
But wait a minute. A majority of Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage. A majority of Americans oppose partial-birth abortion. A majority of Americans support "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A majority of Americans are not troubled by references to God in the public square. If the Times now supports all of these positions, a logical extension of its "one person, one vote" argument, then the world truly has turned upside-down.
The editorial really makes no sense when compared to previous positions the Times has taken on that same page. The paper has argued, rightly in some instances, that the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of minorities from being subject to the whims of the majority. But when it comes to the EC, that goes out the window.
The Times simply doesn't get it. The states are sovereign entities, joined together by the Constitution into a federal republic. The states elect the president. That is the constitutional design. Whenever constitutional amendments are proposed, the paper is quick to say that the Constitution is not something to be lightly tinkered with. But when it comes to altering the fundamental structure of the Constitution, the Times doesn't hesitate to support such a radical step without question. Today it makes an intellectually vacuous and historically ignorant argument.
posted by Hal | 4:55 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home