It seems to me that the issue of the Electoral College can be put in perspective by considering another institution which does not have proportional representation, the Senate. Each state has two Senators, no more, no less, no matter how large or how small. The argument against the Electoral College, that it thwarts the popular vote, can just as easily be made against the Senate - it, too, thwarts the popular vote. Is this bad? No, not if you think being governed by the popular vote of people in other states is a bad thing, to be avoided whenever possible.
We live in a nation, yes, but within that nation are 50 states with their own real, but limited, sovereignty. It sound strange to say so, but it's true. That is what forms the bedrock of federalism - each state has its own powers, its own sphere within which its government operates.
Is this a good thing, or is this a bad thing? If you think uniformity is a good thing, and that national goals are more important, then you will think that federalism is a bad thing. You will think that the states exist to carry out national directives.
But (it should go without saying) the delegates from the several states to the Continental Congress did not want to be subsumed into a national government. So that is why the system is set up the way it is.
And there are many of us living in the several states who do not trust the Federal government, no matter how brightly it smiles nor how many shiny beads it holds out. Queen Hillary may thunder until she is worn out, she can't force us to give up federalism via the popular vote. We have to voluntarily put our necks into the yokes. |
