Electoral College has served us well

Re “Electoral College is grossly unfair” letter by Subhash C. Saxena.

The framers of the Constitution were cognizant of slavery and knew that in order to get a Constitution ratified, compromise had to be a part of it. It wasn't the main reason for the Electoral College though. They were arguing structure; parties had not yet come into being.

Mr. Saxena cites a Time article about the reasons for the Electoral College, which: “But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and south, and between the coasts and the interior.”

It's true that a few states were Northern and a few Southern, which made up the United States, and they had different interests. The false premise is that there was no big-small state differences - because there were.

The big-small state argument was one of the biggest discussions in the drafting of the Constitution. There would have been no Constitution if this issue of representation wasn't settled. There was the Virginia plan (favoring big states), and the New Jersey plan (favoring small states).

Some states, especially small states, said they couldn't support the Virginia plan. The large states didn't want to support the New Jersey plan because it gave equal representation to the small states. A completely different plan was agreed to that used parts of both plans.

The result was the Connecticut Compromise that retained the bicameral legislature (House and Senate) of the Virginia plan, with proportional popular representation in House. The Senate would be weighted equally between the states. Slavery had nothing to do with this. That was a separate issue dealt with later.

Our Constitution gave us a democratic republic, not a democracy. Article VII of the U.S. Constitution states, “The ratification of the Conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution ... Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present ....”

Nothing about the people ratifying the Constitution; it was ratified by the states with the understanding that they would also be represented in the new federal government. The framers had studied earlier historical democracies and opted not for a democracy, but a democratic republic. As an aside, if Mr. Saxena thinks that the Electoral College is unfair, how about the Senate? Each state, no matter the population or size, has just two senators.

He noted that “France is a republic and not a banana republic.”

This is France's fifth republic. Which republic has stood the test of time and stability? How many parties does France have? France is governed by coalitions because of the numerous parties.

The same problems that France and some other democracies have is they have to govern by coalition. If the U.S. had popular elections, the U.S. would probably have numerous parties running their own presidential candidates. Do we want coalition government? Today we have at least six parties that could field candidates: Democratic, Republican, Reform, Libertarian, Green, Tea Party.

Who knows how many more could be fielded on particular issues.

You quote me as saying, “A presidential candidate must appeal to the people and diverse groups across the nation,” which I stand by and the 2016 election confirmed. Then you say this is a fallacy.

I ask you to look at the 2016 Electoral College map by county. One can travel from coast to coast without traveling through a democratic county. The Democratic Party has become an urban and coastal party only representing their interests. This was on display in 2016.

The framers gave us a fair system of government and have balanced minority protection with majority rule by keeping federalism a founding principal.

This story was originally published March 13, 2017 at 7:23 AM with the headline "Electoral College has served us well."