If history and civics classes in our schools did a better job of illustrating the pros and cons of electing U.S. presidents by the 538 members of the Electoral College and not by the majority of the people in this country, students might better appreciate how such an undemocratic relic came into existence in Article 2 of the Constitution and why it's still with us today after more than 200 years.
We brag about our populism to strangers yet direct democracy is a foreign concept in the USA. We require neither direct voting nor a majority to select an individual to lead our country and by default most of the free world also.
The Electoral College resulted when the members of the Constitutional Convention believed average citizens couldn't be entirely trusted to select a president. They entrusted that job to a group of electors who would cast blocks of votes on a state-by-state basis. Each state today has its own laws governing the selection process. When you cast a vote for president and vice president, you are really casting a vote for a slate of electors chosen by the candidate's party. These electors are nominated by their political parties at the state party convention or by the party's state central committee.
But, under this scenario, presidents can be elected with fewer votes than their opponent. To date, 15 presidents have taken office with less than 50 percent of the popular vote. In 2000, Al Gore lost the national election to George Bush even though he led his opponent by more than half a million votes.
What America needs is a constitutional amendment requiring the direct and majority election of presidents to replace the undemocratic system we have had for more than two centuries thanks to the power of financial and political interests. Expect to land a man on Mars long before we'll see such an amendment.
MARV FISHMAN
Latham