Response to Dr. Loomis column re: Electoral College:

To the editor:
Response to Dr. Loomis column re: Electoral College:
Do you support the effort to subvert the Constitution by the NPVIC (National Pop Vote Interstate Compact)? Or are you willing to put this to the amendment process?
Frankly, if you truly understand the Constitution and accept the rationale in its construction, I don’t see how you can support a direct popular election of the President. There have been a number of quantitative studies which debunk your primary argument for direct elections, that of the primacy of so-called “swing states,” has been shown to be illusory. If anything was shown in those studies it is the possibility of exacerbating that problem by having the candidates focus only on those with the most population.

For example in the current election the two campaigns are focusing on “swing states” with pretty small populations because of the Electoral College. Were we dealing with direct election you could count on zero focus on Iowa, Nevada, and New Hampshire all of which are seeing both campaigns spending a lot of travel and money on them. The Obama campaign would be spending 80 percent of its time and money driving up majorities in New York, California, and Massachusetts. Because of the Electoral College dynamic they have to focus on very small swing states like New Hampshire.

I certainly hope that you are teaching your Constitutional students to approach this question with a sound foundation in the thinking of the founders. Remember we are not a democracy and were not intended to be such. I hope that your instruction includes a real investigation into their thinking possibly informed by Federalist 68.
And if you aren’t familiar with it perhaps you should look into the minority report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary from the 1970 hearings on the Electoral College process. It is a very unusual document in that the minority report is signed not by members of the minority party but the minority on the question which consisted of senators from both parties.