History and the Electoral College

A letter titled “No reason to mess with Electoral College” noted that “Sen. Dick Durbin is proposing to abolish the Electoral College, saying it is antiquated and does not represent democracy.” The writer charges that Durbin “needs to take a basic civics course” and “he will discover that “the United States is not a democracy but a republic.”

Nonsense. In a democratic election, the candidate who gets the most votes should win. It is as simple as that.

Of course, we are a republic. We do not have a system where the entire population shows up in Washington to propose and enact laws. Instead, we elect Congress to act on our behalf. But this has nothing to do with the Electoral College.

If the writer took American History, he would learn of the famous “Three Fifths Compromise” embodied in our Constitution. Southern delegates to the constitutional convention wanted their slaves to be counted in determining how many congressmen their states were entitled to. Northern delegates contended that since slaves were treated as mere property, they should not be counted. It was ultimately agreed that three fifths of the slave population of each state would be counted.

The Southern delegates then objected to election of the president by popular vote, as “our slaves would count for nothing.” With the Electoral College, each state has electoral votes equal to its two senators, plus each of its congressmen. The vote of a southerner in a presidential election counted for more than the vote of a northern man, because counting three fifths of the slaves increased his state’s electoral votes.

Slavery was abolished 159 years ago; the Electoral College is indeed antiquated.

Finally, the writer asserts that under this system, “we have been able to survive for 250 years as a nation with limited internal conflicts.” Right. Except for the Civil War. 620,000 dead.

He really needs to take a basic American History course.

Wiley Edmondson

Geneva