Electoral College levels the political playing field

Re “Electoral College undermines democracy” letter by Subhash Saxena.

That Saxena argues for abolishing the Electoral College is almost forgivable since he’s a professor of mathematics at Coastal Carolina University. Were he lecturing students on history or political science, we would be very worried. His arguments are inaccurate and miss the point and the very reason our founders settled on the Electoral College.

We live in democratic republic, not a pure democracy (in the sense of a country in which laws are made predominantly by majority vote). The founders made provisions to adjust, change or amend the Constitution – the foundational law of the land – but they also created a new kind of federalist system that counts our presidential votes federally, not nationally, a decision designed to protect the minority and “minorities” from majorities of one.

Creating the Electoral College had little to do with whether people living in one state would know much about a candidate from far away, as the professor asserts. Our unique federalist system provides for individual states and a federal government with limited powers. Even in 1787, representatives of the Southern States worried, for example, that Massachusetts and other “industrial states” could overwhelm them. They envisioned a day when farmers in Iowa would lose all power to bankers on Wall Street. Result? The states were guaranteed a substantial degree of independence. When it came to creating the Constitution that made us a nation of laws not men, they clearly stated that “we the people” are not part of country called America, or Columbus or even Washington, but “of the United States of America.” Ample proof of the Founders’ intent.

Saxena refers to “troubling reasons the Electoral College still exists and notes that “40 percent of the time in this century the winner of the popular vote lost.”

True enough, but just as true is that fully 100 percent of the time, the president was elected by a balanced majority of the 50 states.

Battleground states change from year-to-year and era-to-era, so his argument that those states have more power is irrelevant. In fact, he has actually made a good case for us retain the Electoral College. He says that it is not OK for voters in “battleground states” to have more power, but it is OK that almost 100 percent of so-called “blue districts” are heavily urban. Eliminating the Electoral College would effectively disenfranchise voters in two-thirds of the states.

Finally, his argument that “the remaining 38 to 40 states do not matter” is precisely the reason we have an Electoral College in the first place. With it, the state of Iowa can be as important as the state of New York, just as the Founders intended.

The unintended consequence of his letter to the editor? He has made a strong case that retaining the Electoral College actually levels the playing field in our remarkable republic.

The writer is founder of upwithAmerica.org.

This story was originally published December 30, 2016 at 4:47 AM with the headline "Electoral College levels the political playing field."