Yesterday The New York Times (The Paper Of Record, “All The News That’s Fit To Print”) published an unsigned editorial calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. The more cynical among you might question the timing of this opinion, as John Kerry’s numbers drop lower and lower, but instead I just prefer to think of them to finally catching up on Your Humble Correspondent. I seem to recall writing back in May that in the three and a half years since the last Presidential election, despite all the screams that “Gore won the popular vote,” and such, not one credible source had put forth a serious challenge to the Electoral College System. And four weeks ago I posted another piece that took a hard look at just how absurd the rules of the Electoral College could be twisted.
And now here comes the Old Gray Lady of Journalism (not to be confused with Helen Thomas), calling for the abolition of the Electoral College without even taking a single sentence to describe just how that would be done. Because the Electoral College is established in the Constitution (Article II, Section I), it would take a Constitutional amendment to change that. (Note to the Times: unlike gay marriage, you can’t get 4/7 of a state supreme court or a rogue mayor or two to overturn it .) And according to the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by either 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of all state legislatures, and then approved by 3/4 of state legislatures or state conventions. No judges allowed.
So, just what does the Times think will happen when their legions of followers hear this clarion call to action? I don’t know what they expect, but the cynic in me thinks they’re laying the groundwork to challenge the legitimacy of a second Bush term and undermine his effectiveness. But then, I’m just one guy with a copy of the Constitution at hand and a good memory of the Times’ shameful history.
Ah, how the mighty have fallen.