Now, the AJC distorts the U.S. Constitution

Recently, the fattest targets at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, my local paper, have been the liberal columnists at the paper. Today Cynthia Tucker, the editorial page editor, decided to take on the United States Constitution generally and the Electoral College specifically. In the column, Tucker has expresses a very real concern - that because of the Electoral College Presidential candidates don't spend much, if any, time campaigning in states where the vote is not competitive. This affects the State of Georgia, since the state is considered safe for President Bush and since the President will probably receive a majority of the popular vote to win all of our Electors.

Tucker then goes on to explain how she thinks the Electoral College works (emphasis mine):

This unwholesome system reflects an artifact of American history -- the electoral college. Even though the nation's Founding Fathers are lauded for their democratic principles, they really didn't trust the common man (they didn't bother giving the franchise to women) to directly elect presidents. So they set up the electoral college as a buffer between voters and the outcome of the election. Each state is assigned a certain number of electoral votes based on population; the winner of any state gets all the state's electoral college votes, no matter how narrow the margin of victory.

She then proposes her solution:

The United States of America is a single nation with a strong central government, not a loose confederation of states. It's time for a blue-ribbon, bipartisan commission to study abolition of the Electoral College. (Such a commission would be viewed with less suspicion if it were created by a president who won by a landslide).

In other words, Tucker is proposing that the U.S. Constitution be amended to abolish the Electoral College. A long and difficult process at best.

However, if Tucker were actually familiar with what the Constitution says about the selection of electors, she would know that changing the Constitution would not be required to change the way a State selects electors for a Presidential election. From Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution (emphasis mine):

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The meaning of the Constitution is clear, it is the job of each State's legislature to determine how it's electoral votes are awarded. True, most states have opted for the winner-takes-all method (whoever wins the popular vote in a state gets all of the Electors). But two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not.

As a matter of fact, any state can change how their electoral votes are awarded. Not by amending the U.S. Constitution, but by changing state law. If the State of Georgia wanted to award it's Electoral College votes proportionally based on the popular vote - all we would need to do is to pass the appropriate state law.

This would put the State of Georgia in play, force Presidential Candidates to actively campaign here, and change the dynamic of the Presidential election. All without amending the United States Constitution.

One wonders why Tucker wrote a column about the Electoral College without bothering to find out first how it actually works. But as you can tell from my posts of the last week or so, the AJC never lets the facts get in the way of many of their opinions. I believe the AJC owes it's readers more respect by getting their facts straight before offering their opinion.

Comments

[Eddie Thomas]

Nice post. This is a point that needs to be made more often. Working state by state is more consistent with the federal principles of this country.

[Steve]

A very informative post. I wasn't aware of states' ability to change how their electoral votes are cast any more than Tucker appears to have been. Good work!

[Rick DeMent]

There are some states that award electors proportionally already, Main is one I believe.

But I like the EC, without it candidates would only have to campaign in about 6 or 7 big states.

[Steve]

I agree, Rick. I'm not sure they would have to campaign in even that many states, if they felt pretty confident about how tied up they had two or three of them.