Editor,
What two traits do all advocates for the elimination of the Electoral College have in common?
1. They are members of the Democratic Party whose candidate lost the 2000 and 2016 elections.
2. They are ignorant or contemptuous of the protections provided by the Electoral system against the tyranny of democracy.
The USA is a republic, not a democracy. We are a union of States, not a collection of individuals. The electoral system was created to protect the individual States and their citizens from the dangers posed by pure democracy — “the tyranny of the majority.” Most of us learned this concept in 10th grade Civics! Many have forgotten.
Without the Electoral College, future presidential elections will be decided by a handful of large, (liberal), urban areas: New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, etc. The rest of us – Maine included – will have no voice, no influence, and no representation in the White House. Presidential candidates will campaign solely in these large metropolitan areas. The voices and needs of those of us in “flyover country” will be ignored.
Why Mr. Weil and any citizen of this great republic would voluntarily surrender their freedom, their Constitutional rights, and their collective political power to the whims of the capricious and fickle majority is mind-boggling and suicidal.
Walter E. Williams recently wrote a brilliant, brief analysis on the subject: https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/01/17/republic-not-democracy
As Dr. Williams notes, “The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. (For example,) two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule.”
Additionally, he states “the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.”
Paul Israelson
Biddeford
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less