I would like to apologize to Nancy Steele for the condescending attack by a regular Star letter writer: “Nancy Steele does not understand out government!”
In fact, it is the author of the attack who does not understand our government.
The Willacy County “historian” wrongly claims that, “The Electoral College was set up to give states equal representation.” (States? Like Texas and Rhode Island?) ‘fraid not ma’am. The indirect election of our President was established chiefly because the framers of the Constitution did not trust voters to elect the right candidate, so special electors were used instead of voters … just in case the wrong guy won.
Until the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, even our Senators were selected by indirect election.
The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution superseded Article 1, Section 3 of the Constitution under which Senators were selected by state legislators, not by the voters!
If the “historian” still supports the indirect election of our Senators, as she so heartily does for the Presidency, she is 107 years beyond the sell date.
The Electoral College was established at a time when no state had more than twice the population of any another, so the political misrepresentation was not as serious as it is today.
In fact, if California had the same representation that voters in Wyoming enjoyed, it would not have 57 electoral votes, but 450.
After all, she reasons, why should millions of voters living in populous states be represented fairly? Heck, they might (Lawdy, perish the thought) elect a Democrat!
The Electoral College has become extremely unrepresentative no matter how desperately the lady tries to rationalize its undemocratic nature, simply because she supports the election of Donald Trump.
So much for that “representative government” stuff, eh?
Still, the Electoral college has served us fairly well.
Until the last 36 years, only three Presidents were selected without winning a plurality of the popular vote: John Adams, Rutherford Hayes and Grover Cleveland, and those were in the 1800s.
But in just the seven elections since 1980, the Electoral College has twice selected candidates who did not win the popular vote. Al Gore won 500,000 more votes than Bush in 2000, and Hillary Clinton 2.8 million more than Trump.
Hence the new attention to our manner of selecting a President, and the lady’s fervid opposition to direct election of the President.
Our ‘historian’ actually, incredibly, unbelievably even, states, “The Electoral College was set up to fulfill a greater need … than the opinion of a majority of voters!”
I wonder what “greater need” she believes could possibly be more important than voting in a presidential election? Could she name just one?
What we see in the lady’s somewhat bizarre view of our government is support of states rights, but dependence on the central government to enforce them.
So the federal government should help Mississippi keep Blacks out of ‘Ole Miss?
Climbing yet further out on a limb, she continues, “This system has been the most envied ever devised.” (I hadn’t heard.) And further still, “Those countries that use the democratic method of popular vote”-which would be every other modern democratic society in the worldactually envy us!” Could she name just one?
I understand why Nancy Steele has not responded to this rudeness, but I suspect the Star does not realize how much their readers dislike being pilloried by inveterate letter writers who cannot offer a single quote or fact to support their wild attacks.
M. Dailey Harlingen