Jan 16, 2017 3 min read

Every argument I’ve heard in defense of the Electoral College has been nonsensical, and Tom Flickinger’s commentary piece in the Jan. 8 edition of the Observer-Reporter was no exception.

The “Founding Fathers” argument is weak, as it is in every dispute. The Founding Fathers weren’t infallible gods. To their credit, they left the door open to amend the Constitution when inevitable problems with the original document arose. Handing the presidency to someone who lost the popular vote by 3 million votes surely qualifies as such a problem.

The “weighted states” argument is weak. Each state has elections determined by a popular vote. These elections send representatives to Washington, D.C., and give states a voice in national policy. When I vote in these elections, I am a Pennsylvanian. When I vote in a presidential election, I should be an American, with no more or less influence on that election’s outcome than a citizen who lives in Kansas, Florida or Oregon. One citizen, one vote.

The argument that Flickinger makes for the Electoral College by tying it to affirmative action and Title IX is weak and baseless. When upper-crust Republicans talk about protecting minorities, I suspect the minority they most want to promote is the minority to which they are a part – the wealthy. If their taxes aren’t lowered, their businesses deregulated and their labor costs slashed, they feel that they are an oppressed community.

When Flickinger stated that “a popular vote would disenfranchise millions,” I wondered if he understood disenfranchisement. Making it more difficult to vote than to purchase a weapon that could kill a couple dozen kids in a few minutes; closing polling places; eliminating or shrinking the timeframe for early voting; and random puring of voter rolls are examples of disenfranchisement. Counting votes and declaring a winner based on who has the most votes is clearly not.

Addressing Flickinger’s predictable swipe at Hillary Clinton: maybe he doesn’t need assistance with health insurance or college tuition or maybe he doesn’t care about income inequality, universal pre-K or paid family leave, but millions of citizens in the “heartland” do. Clinton’s campaign addressed these concerns. Because her feet didn’t touch soil in Mississippi or Oklahoma doesn’t mean that she ignored them, and to define her character as “despotic” defies logic and reason.

I really don’t understand how Flickinger concluded that Kent James’ thoughtful argument against the Electoral College was a “demand” that Clinton “be president.” Under the present rules, she lost. Any rational person understands and accepts this.

Don DeAngelis

Washington