I was disappointed with Mark Schwiebert’s misleading Nov. 12 column on the Electoral College. He is disturbed that two presidential candidates won the popular vote and not the election. He didn’t mention that both were his party’s candidate. He infers that most founders opposed the practice. He doesn’t name any like Pinckney, Hamilton and later Madison, who wrote in favor of it. It was included in the Constitution and approved again with modifications in the 12th Amendment.
He argues that voters from smaller populated states get more weight in a presidential election. That is debatable. He doesn’t mention how under-represented those voters are in Congress. He claims action by the National Popular Vote movement is close to getting things changed. The fact is they are way short of the necessary states needed to make their end run around the Constitution. The prospect of any more joining is slim to none.
The founders’ fear of the large states running roughshod over the small ones is still valid today. There is an old lawyer’s axiom that says, "if you have the facts argue the facts, if you have the law argue the law, if you don’t have either just argue like hell". Mark does a good job with the latter. He is evidently somebody special who gets a forum to voice his biased opinion.
Catch the latest in Opinion
Get opinion pieces, letters and editorials sent directly to your inbox weekly!