Dear Democrats: Stop talking about ways to rig the system; give me reasons to vote for you

stupid questions

Joe Biden has the right idea, staying out of it so far. At least he hasn’t had to answer the Stupid Question of the Day. Not that he doesn’t get answered questions, and not that they aren’t awkward. But at least he doesn’t yet have to pick a position on no-win litmus-test questions.

At least, he didn’t in this story.

I was thinking that when I saw the above array of candidates, and noticed that Joe wasn’t pictured, despite being, you know, the front-runner in the polls. And then I looked at what the story was about and realized he lucked out there. The headline and a link: Kill the electoral college? Stack the Supreme Court? Frustrated Democrats push ideas for rewiring U.S. politics.

I have one overall answer to the questions being posed by and to Democrats: Stop trying to change the rules. If you can’t come up with a candidate who can beat Trump — under the present rules — then maybe you deserve to lose. Or maybe the country is so far gone that it can’t be saved anyway.

But just to show I don’t dodge the tough (but stupid) questions, here are my answers:

  1. Do you support eliminating the electoral college in favor of the popular vote? No. But if you want to talk seriously about returning the college to the way Hamilton et al. envisioned it — you might get me on board.
  2. Should Democrats eliminate the Senate filibuster the next time they control of Congress? Eliminate it how? I need details. I think it’s ridiculous to have to get 60 votes to pass anything, but I’m sentimental enough about “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” to hesitate at eliminating a minority’s way of being heard.
  3. Would you support adding justices to ‘pack’ the Supreme Court? No. And please, whether you’re on the left or the right, stop maneuvering to impose your political will on a body that is supposed to be immune to such — that’s its role.
  4. Would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices? Absolutely not. The court must remain independent, and lifetime appointment is the best mechanism I can think of for protecting it from the predations of the political branches.
  5. Should citizens be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18? No. But if you’d like to make the age 28 — or maybe 38 — I might be tempted to make a deal with you.
  6. Should Election Day be a national holiday? I don’t care. Although it seems to me that federal workers get enough days off already. Populists will label me a blue meanie for this, but I’m not convinced that people who really want to vote can’t do so currently. Maybe you can present enough evidence to the contrary to change my mind.
  7. Should Washington, D.C., be granted statehood? No. Let me explain the concept behind the District of Columbia, as I understand it: The United States is a union of, you know, states. It’s a good idea for the capital of the country to be on neutral ground. That neutral ground is the District of Columbia. To have another state that consists entirely of the nation’s capital would be weird, and I suspect unwise, on a number of levels. It would be awkward. The other states would likely make fun of it.
  8. Should Puerto Rico be granted statehood? I’m ambivalent. Needs study.
  9. Should the voting age be lowered from 18 to 16? You’re joking, right? See my answer to No. 5. Seems to me the electorate hasn’t been exhibiting a great deal of maturity lately, and this would be the opposite of a good way to fix the problem.
  10. Should all formerly incarcerated people be granted the right to vote? Another one on which I need more info. Certainly in the abstract I agree with the idea that once someone has paid his debt to society, etc… And I’m certainly concerned about how black men, for instance, have historically been over-represented in our prisons. But I need to know more about which felons are currently denied a pathway to the franchise, and why. Maybe some of y’all can enlighten me. If it’s just a matter of certain people not wanting those people to vote (which would seem to be the reason why we’re hearing about this), then I’m with you on making the change.

OK, so not all the questions are stupid. But most of them are. And even the ones that aren’t stupid tend to play stupid in our politics today, with answers being based on the passions of one crowd or another and not on reason.

Perhaps unfairly, I’m lumping in these questions with questions like “Do you want to abolish ICE?,” which I got asked during the campaign even though it had NOTHING to do with being governor, and everything to do with trying to back a candidate into a corner.

Maybe it’s an unfair association. But then again, since that pretended to be about an actual issue, maybe these questions are worse.

Anyway, tell me what sort of president you would be. Talk to me about some real issue — health care, or the real biggie, international relations. Or cite what it is in your background that qualifies you and make me trust you. Don’t bore me with talk about re-rigging elections themselves to try to give this or that group a greater advantage. Just play the game straight, please…

53 thoughts on “Dear Democrats: Stop talking about ways to rig the system; give me reasons to vote for you

  1. Brad Warthen Post author

    Let me hastily add, however, that if you want to talk about stopping gerrymandering, then I’m your man.

    That would be addressing an actual problem…

    Reply
  2. bud

    These are important but I would like to talk about traditional issues like military spending (much, much lower) and healthcare (like every other developed nation we need everyone covered). But let’s take a crack at these since Brad brought them up.

    1. Of course the electoral college should go. Time to get behind the national popular vote compact. Colorado is on board and New Mexico and Maine are close. About 80 more electoral votes to go. I have never heard a decent argument to keep this travesty. It is nothing more than a clumsy way to approximate the popular vote. And no we won’t return to the original intent. That was just a bad idea based on false assumptions. It was intended to prevent the Trump’s of the world. Having failed to do that what possible argument still exists? Why have a government at all if the rules are set in stone.

    2. Let’s get rid of the silly 60 vote filibuster for all matters.

    3. I’m for a one time court packing initiative. Once the dems take the White House and Senate add a temporary 10th justice and revert to 9 when a Republican appointee retires. This would rectify a serious injustice to the system perpetrated by Mitch McConnell.

    4. Lifetime appointments are a really bad idea. Justices should serve a maximum of 18 years. Every 2 years a justice retires and a mandatory vote takes place in the senate. This could be done in odd years on a specified date certain. Not sure what Brad’s independent court thing is about. That ship sailed a loooong time ago.

    5. Automatically have all American citizens voter eligible on their 18th birthday. This is a really good idea. Given the way younger voters supported Hillary in the last election over their older peers I would maintain they are better at judging character.

    6. Election day should be a Holiday. We could replace Columbus Day. So that would satisfy Brad’s concern about too many holidays.

    7. Just carve out a small government zone which basically includes the mall area and a few office buildings. Then cede the populated region to Maryland.

    8. Not 100% sure about Puerto Rico but may be time for that.

    9. I was going to say 16 may be a bit young. But after thinking about it they have a stake in the legal system like anyone else. After all it is their schools getting shot up by AR-15 kooks. Maybe we should look at this further.

    10. What’s to think about? Any person who has served their sentence should be granted the right to vote. This is the second easiest of these (behind the repeal of the odious electoral college)

    11. Let’s get rid of Gerrymandering and voter suppression laws. In order of importance:
    Voter Suppression
    Electoral College
    Gerrymandering

    So for those of you keeping score at home Brad is right on 4ish of these issues (age 16 voting, Puerto Rico statehood, Gerrymandering, and maybe felon voting and election day holiday)

    Reply
      1. Mark Stewart

        Yes – I had not heard this before but it makes perfect sense and addresses all the objections. Federal properties could be the “District of DC” and everything else the city of WDC.

        Reply
  3. bud

    While we’re talking about election laws let me throw in another one. Let’s change the way we elect senators. This business of Wyoming having the same number of senators as California is preposterous. What I would do is combine areas along comparable population lines the way the House is done. That may mean some small states would combine with other states to elect senators. You could pair Wyoming with Colorado to elect a senator. California and Texas might get 8 or 10 senators.

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      “This business of Wyoming having the same number of senators as California is preposterous.”

      No, it isn’t.

      The Constitutional Convention was a gathering of representatives of various STATES, at which said representatives tried to agree upon a way to work together in a united way. Having a bicameral legislature in which the states were represented in one chamber in a way that benefited more populous states, and in the other in a way that gave an advantage to the less populous states, makes sense as a way to get everyone on board. (And it makes sense apart from the complicating factor of trying to dance around slavery.)

      Every piece of our checks-and-balances government had a different way of being chosen, and therefore a different sort of constituency to answer to: The courts were named by the executive with advise and consent of part of the legislature. The president was chosen by electors who were identified using a method of each state’s choosing. Senators were named by states (either in general elections or by action of the state legislature). The House was directly elected by the public from districts apportioned by population.

      This was a pretty smart plan. We’ve messed with it — neutering the electoral college and providing popular election of senators — but it was and remains a pretty smart plan.

      Reply
      1. Mr. Smith

        A good way to undermine faith in the democratic process is by insisting that the way we elect presidents remain unchanged while turning a blind eye to the fact that it elects presidents by minority vote.

        Reply
        1. Doug Ross

          Another way to undermine it is to centralize power in densely populated urban areas that are not representative of the values of the entire country.

          Reply
      2. Brad Warthen Post author

        Yup.

        I’m agreeing with both of you.

        I don’t think it should change (except back toward Hamilton’s vision), but I agree with Mr. Smith that people who don’t understand the principles underlying our republic — and these days, that’s most people (and mind you, I’m not including Mr. Smith in that) — can lose faith in what they believe is supposed to be a democracy.

        They can do so in all sincerity. I think they really believe it’s wrong and unfair.

        And though I see as based in a failure to understand the good points of the College, that loss of faith is still a real thing that deserves some consideration. We can’t just blow it off.

        So that’s why, in different ways, I agree with both of you…

        Reply
        1. Brad Warthen Post author

          Oh, and I should point out that before the 2016 election, I was VERY worried that Trump would be the one to win a popular vote, but Hillary would win the Electoral College.

          There was NO WAY the Trump people would have accepted that as legitimate. People who understand our system and how it’s supposed to work are particularly scarce in the Trump base.

          And their alienation is SO profound (why else would they have deliberately blown up the system by electing Trump?) that it scares me. It’s why I have hoped he doesn’t get impeached, or at least not before he completely loses the loyalty of his MAGA crowd. Because they wouldn’t accept that as legit either, and I believe things would get really ugly fast…

          Reply
        2. Mr. Smith

          Seems pretty condescending to assume that folks who resent minority government suffer from a poor understanding of the “blessings” of the Electoral College. That if they properly understood the underlying principle, they’d be perfectly happy with minority control.

          But at no point did the Framers suggest that protecting minority interests should involve rule by minority.

          Reply
          1. Doug Ross

            It’s not like an 20-80 minority having control.. Hillary didn’t even get a majority of votes (48.2%).. so most Americans didn’t want her to be President either. The difference in vote totals can be attributed to a very small, distinct, regional subsection of the country. Had she had broader appeal in the Rust Belt she would have won.

            Reply
  4. Harry Harris

    “Having a bicameral legislature in which the states were represented in one chamber in a way that benefited more populous states, and in the other in a way that gave an advantage to the less populous states, makes sense as a way to get everyone on board. ”
    The House makeup makes sense as far as “one-person, one vote.” It’s not really a “benefit” to the more populous states, it is fair, as it should be – until gerrymandering raises its ugly head. The Senate makeup is definitely a benefit to less populous states, and gives citizens of those states clout far beyond their proportion of the population – mainly initiated as you rightly point out because of the slavery issue.
    The most egregious aspect of the Senate/House differences is that the electoral college rule gives smaller states an outsized voice in the Senate and the election of the President. 22 smaller states with only 11% of the county’s population have 11 more electoral votes than New York and California with 18 percent of the population. Even worse, 10 small states with only 7.3 million folks have three more electoral votes than New York with 19.8 million. The small states are not only advantaged in the Senate, but have extra clout in electing the President – who happens to select Supreme Court Justices. Extra clout in three of the four key components of our government is far too much to cede to the small states and still have a representative democracy or republic.

    Reply
    1. Article Five of the United States Constitution

      “no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate”

      Reply
      1. Doug Ross

        This discussion of changing the electoral college is driven by people who still can’t accept that Trump won over their chosen candidate. Get over it. The rules for winning are quite clear. Create a campaign that attracts voters across the country, not just in NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, and Philly.
        Hillary spent close a BILLION dollars and couldn’t generate enough support in the Rust Belt to win it. Her campaign strategy was flawed and her campaign style was uninspiring. She lost the election. She knew the rules, she knew the parameters required to win and had YEARS to prepare a strategy to do that. And she blew it… she lost to pompous boor — but a pompous boor who had a strategy to win.

        Reply
        1. bud

          “values of the entire country”

          ?????

          If by “values” you mean lying, racism, sexual assault, fraud and incompetence then the “entire country” got its man.

          Reply
          1. Doug Ross

            Trump isn’t a racist.

            Can you not accept that there are people in this country who had ZERO interest in voting for Hillary for any number of reasons besides the extreme positions you listed?

            In my view, she is no less calculating and corrupt (the Clinton Foundation is a scam) than Trump. And while she may not be as grandiose a liar as Trump, she is a master of spinning the truth in her way. Her repeated lies about her email server revealed enough about her character to convince me not to vote for her.

            The bottom line is that if she wasn’t a lazy candidate, she would have been President. She assumed she was going to win.

            Reply
            1. Mark Stewart

              Um, the record would say its pretty clear Trump is a racist – among many other disreputable character traits.

              Reply
              1. Doug Ross

                Give me one example of Trump acting as a racist since he has been President. Please don’t dredge up stuff from decades ago.

                Would a racist say this? ( I saw him on CSPAN making this speech)

                https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidential-proclamation-national-african-american-history-month-2019/

                “National African American History Month is an occasion to rediscover the enduring stories of African Americans and the gifts of freedom, purpose, and opportunity they have bestowed on future generations. It is also a time to commemorate the countless contributions of African Americans, many of whom lived through and surmounted the scourge of segregation, racial prejudice, and discrimination to enrich every fiber of American life. Their examples of heroism, patriotism, and enterprise have given people of all backgrounds confidence, courage, and faith to pursue their own dreams.”

                Reply
                1. Doug Ross

                  Does he have examples of prejudice in his past? Sure. But throwing the term racist around diminishes the power of that word. Same with misogynist. Some people are much too cavalier with using very strong labels to brand activities that better fall into categories of biases or stereotyping. There is a difference between an actual racist and someone who holds stereotypical views of certain segments of a race.

    2. Bryan Caskey

      So you’re also in favor of getting rid of the Senate entirely, then. I mean, that’s the only logical conclusion I draw from your argument. I guess you could try to do away with our bicameral legislature, but I don’t think you’ll find enough support for that to actually happen.

      It would be easier for you to move to a nice country that has a unicameral legislature. Portugal seems to be the best on the list.

      Reply
      1. bud

        Here’s a compromise. Have each state elect senators at large rather than districts the way the house does it. Each state gets a number of senators based on population.

        Just for the record, none of these things will actually happen except possibly the popular vote compact. We’re just discussing hypotheticals.

        Reply
      2. Harry Harris

        Since when have I tried to be logical? I don’t favor changing the Senate in any way. I do favor going to a popular vote election of the President to do away with the additional advantage the smaller states have in electing another of the pillars of our government. As I pointed out, the President has the opportunity to appoint the Supremes (unless that hallowed Senate pulls a play like McConnell did with Obama’s appointee).

        Reply
      3. Mr. Smith

        “It would be easier for you to move to a nice country that has a unicameral legislature.”

        Typical right-wing reaction: Don’t like the way things are, then leave.

        Apparently making alterations, reforms, is totally unacceptable to those on the right – perhaps because they benefit from the way things operate now. All their talk about first principles is largely window-dressing for what truly motivates them: an effort to hold onto power through by exercising minority control. Which should come as no surprise, since they’ve always resisted expanding democratic inclusion (the redistribution of political influence), whether it came in the form of broader enfranchisement, one-man-one-vote, or extending participation. They’ve always believed instead in rule by “the better sort,” which has generally meant those with wealth and property, the assumption being that wealthy people are “smarter” and more “responsible” than the hoi polloi.

        Reply
  5. bud

    Why is it so hard for intelligent, thoughtful people to just accept that the founding fathers just made a mistake with the electoral college. It never really worked. These wise men (electors) who were supposed to be insolated from the vagaries of politics never were and never could be. Brads suggestion that we return to that concept is a fantasy. Over time political pressures drove the electoral college toward a clumsy approximation of the popular vote. Who even can name an elector? Once you accept that unimpeachable truth all the high minded arguments fall apart. What we have is in no way some sort of principled republic but rather a weighted democracy. Then there’s this bizarre notion that rural voters are more worthy of having a greater voice in the process that suburban and especially big city voters. Really? Are we to go back to the days of the 3/5 person? Finally, these arguments melt away for Republicans the day a Democrat wins via the electoral college route while losing the popular. That nearly happened in 1960, 1976 and 2004. The ONLY justification for any system other than a popular vote is to keep someone like Trump out of the White House. Since it failed to do that ALL other arguments are based on nothing more that a polyianish belief in the infallibility of the founding fathers. The same people who allowed slavery. These were good men who did their best but ultimately they were humans with flaws. Time to accept that truth.

    Reply
    1. Harry Harris

      Though I’ve not checked it out, I was taught that the electoral college was an expression of a mistrust of the unwashed crowd and provided a safety valve against democracy (understood as “mob rule.”) I don’t think there’s much disagreement that the framers were elitists, though they disagreed on numerous points, many of which had to do with the degree of elitism they should write into the framework for the government.

      Reply
    2. Bryan Caskey

      “The ONLY justification for any system other than a popular vote is to keep someone like Trump out of the White House.”

      I can think of some.

      Reply
    3. Mr. Smith

      “Over time political pressures drove the electoral college toward a clumsy approximation of the popular vote.”

      A better approximation would be to have electors chosen based on the majority in each congressional district rather than the winner-take-all system that has had such a distorting effect.

      Reply
  6. Bart

    Leave each state with the same number of electoral college votes they have now. When the votes are tallied, then assign the percentage of electoral college votes to the percentage of votes each candidate received. That way, every voter is given equal consideration and there is no winner take all. If a third party candidate gets a high enough percentage, then the electoral college votes would be split 3 ways. In the end, the candidate with the highest number of college votes is the winner. Otherwise, the way the system is now is the best option we have.

    I.E., if California votes 2 million for the Democrat and 1 million for the Republican, then California’s 55 electoral college votes is split giving 37 for the Democrat and 18 for the Republican or if a third party candidate garners enough votes, say 100,000, then the split will be 3 ways. Doing away with the electoral college practically guarantees the voters in states with smaller populations should probably stay home on election day.

    In case anyone has forgotten, in 1992 Bill Clinton did not win the popular vote, he had approximately 43%. GWHB loss was primarily due to Ross Perot siphoning off 19% of the votes but Perot didn’t receive one electoral college vote. This was an example of “winner take all”. 370 ECVs for Clinton, 168 for GWHB.

    But the argument will soon be settled once enough states sign on to give their electoral votes to the national vote winner. This is the only way Democrats will get their wish because a constitutional amendment will never pass during our lifetime or anytime in the distant future.

    Doug is right when he posted that Hillary Clinton lost the election because she failed miserably as a campaigner by ignoring key Rust Belt states that she believed would vote for her. And she insulted too many voters when in her hubris she called them “deplorables”. She ran one of the worst campaigns ever and paid for it. She learned not one thing from Bill Clinton, nothing at all. Another factor was “Clinton Fatigue”. The last observation is when a Republican defeats a Democrat, the outcry about voter suppression, fraud, and racism from the defeated candidates fill the news media 24/7 for months. Sooner or later, the voters grow weary of the negative coverage and will make their displeasure known on election day. Never underestimate Trump or his supporters. That was the mistake Clinton made and paid for it.

    Unfortunately there are no likely Republican candidates on the horizon to challenge Trump and agree or not, by denigrating Trump supporters and trying to lump all Republicans and conservatives together with him only drives them closer to voting for him and they will turn out on election day.

    Reply
    1. Harry Harris

      Why be that complicated? Popular vote would avoid unintended consequences.

      ” The last observation is when a Republican defeats a Democrat, the outcry about voter suppression, fraud, and racism from the defeated candidates fill the news media 24/7 for months.”

      I wish that were true. It doesn’t get the attention or deep examination it deserves.

      Reply
      1. Bart

        What is complicated about it? It is simple math. Maybe that is the problem, it is simple and uncomplicated. And what would be the unintended consequences of assigning ECVs to each candidate according to the number of votes each one received? IMHO it actually gives every voter a legitimate voice in the election results. As it is now, the voters in California who don’t vote for a Democrat are basically wasting their time. Same can be said about New York. Conversely, Democrat voters in a strong Republican state waste their votes. ECVs distributed according to final count and percentage of the popular vote would insure all votes count.

        Reply
  7. bud

    Can anyone make an argument defending the electoral college without talking about how badly Hillary Clinton ran her campaign? That is really irrelevant.

    Reply
      1. Doug Ross

        1. It allows for smaller states to have a say in electing the President rather than concentrating that power in densely populated urban areas. Why should Los Angeles county California (pop. 10 million and an area less than half the size of Massachusett) have a greater say in electing the President of the UNITED STATES (emphasis mine) than the states of Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Delaware, Rhode Island, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, and Hawaii combined? I’d rather have a President who won all those ten states than one who won Los Angeles county.

        2. It’s about finding a candidate who can appeal to the largest cross section of America. Certain issues are more important in some areas versus others. In a non-electoral college vote, a candidate could theoretically call for policies that only benefited California, New York, and Illinois just to win a huge advantage there. The electoral college FORCES a candidate to appeal to a broader cross section.

        3. It’s the law and changing the law would be impossible in the current political climate.

        P.S. Hillary blew it and lost to a reality TV show host.

        Reply
        1. Doug Ross

          And here’s your challenge, bud.. let’s see you discuss the electoral college without using the terms racist, “grab em”, or immigrant.

          Reply
        2. Harry Harris

          “2. It’s about finding a candidate who can appeal to the largest cross section of America. ”
          Thus we got Trump? Or might have gotten Clinton?

          Point 3 and the PS are spot-on correct.

          Reply
        3. bud

          Why should Los Angeles county California (pop. 10 million and an area less than half the size of Massachusett) have a greater say in electing the President ?

          Because Los Angeles county has 10 million people. Not sure why people should be treated as second class citizens merely because of where they live. Sounds like what you’re arguing is that each county should get 1 vote in presidential elections regardless of size. This argument is a red herring.

          It’s about finding a candidate who can appeal to the largest cross section of America.

          This doesn’t even make any sense. Fact is Republicans are far, far less representative of the “cross section” of America than Democrats. So if your concern is finding the candidate who appeals to the broadest “cross section” of America in demographic terms then the electoral college is exactly what NOT to do. Or if what you’re suggesting is a system that appeals to the largest cross section of WHITE America then I suppose you have a point. But do you really want to go there?

          It’s the law

          Yep it is. So is the federal law prohibiting marijuana. Yet that is not an actual argument. It’s just a truism. (Or is it a tautology. I get these things confused). Anyway I just checked on the NPVIC and 3 states just came on board – CO, DE and NM. Several others have bills moving through their legislative bodies. We’re 70% of the way home! Of course the courts will have their say at some point. This won’t come to fruition in 2020 but with a close election next year more states are likely to sign on. I see the light at the end of the tunnel.

          Reply
          1. Doug Ross

            ” We’re 70% of the way home”

            You are 70% of the way to a goal that will grow increasingly more difficult as you try to reach the magic number. The last state will be harder than the first 20 combined. And then you will face YEARS of litigation that will ultimately end up in front of the Supreme Court who will likely be tilted in Republican’s favor. The general public is not really aware of this effort. Once it gets closer to passing, there will be a major backlash that will slow it further.

            Instead of all this wasted effort, Democrats could try and find a decent candidate with enough energy to run a campaign in multiple states.

            Reply
          2. Doug Ross

            Note to bud – there are black and brown people who live in every state. Contrary to liberal opinion (i.e. stereotypes), they all don’t think alike.

            Reply
            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              Actually, you can see certain trends according to race and ethnicity. I wish it weren’t so, but it can be measured. As Republicans know, which is why they draw black people out of their districts.

              Of course, some of us refuse to dwell in boxes. For instance, that Pew classification system of a few years ago that tried to go beyond left and right in characterizing people’s views, placed me in the only “majority-minority” category they had, even though I’m kind of the whitest white boy you ever saw, according to Ancestry DNA.

              Which is nice. I’d hate to be easily categorized…

              Reply
  8. bud

    I just thought of a strategy to get rid of the odious electoral college. Red state Democrats currently have no reason to vote in presidential elections. Essentially it’s a waste of time to go to the polls except to vote for down ticket races. Consider this. If a Republican wins the popular vote but loses in the EC then red states appreciate the vulgarity of this system. To nudge this along red state Democrats can vote for the Republican candidate! The GOP candidate garners big margins in safely Republican states but loses in th EC. I know pulling the Trump lever is pretty distasteful but the bigger prize might just be worth it.

    Reply
  9. Mr. Smith

    On referencing Mr. Wilentz’s op-ed:

    I can hear some folks give a big sigh of relief: “Whew, thank goodness we don’t have to defend the Electoral College against that slavery business. So everything’s copacetic, right?”

    No, not hardly. Because that doesn’t address any aspect of current concern.

    But having that nasty Andrew Jackson rail against it must surely prove what a good thing the College is, right?
    No, not even close.

    Somehow, certain people seem to have gotten into their heads that what got us the president we now have is an excess of democracy.
    But even Wilentz says the process for electing presidents “may need serious repair.”

    Reply
    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Did you mention the Wilentz piece because I mentioned it on Twitter?

      I just want to know because I like to celebrate whenever someone sees something on social media and comes HERE to comment…

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *