Perhaps one makes oneself look ridiculous by mentioning The New York Times, but it is fairly staggering to see just how ignorant an American journalist can be. After the New Hampshire primaries – which were indeed surprisingly early, this year – the Times discussed – favorably! – the notion of having national primaries, the East one week, the South the next, and so on.

How many States does it take to dictate to the remainder? Three fourths, as to amend the Constitution? If several, or even all, of the States did make a compact to such an effect, the Congress would have the power to approve or disapprove it. But the Constitution commands only the Congress, the president, the judiciary: the States are authorized, but not required, to admit immigrants, to choose a legal tender. If this is a democracy, it is not one in which the minority merely obeys the majority.

Why have primary elections at all? Presumably, to instruct the delegates to the party conventions. But this is absurd; every party holds a convention because by meeting and discussing one learns better than one knew beforehand. Is not this why the electors of each State meet together? What is ludicrous is that several of the States require their electors to follow the popular vote, instead of combining their – presumably – hard-earned knowledge of the candidates. Nowadays, there are so many people on the public payrolls – police and prison guards and “security” personnel and public school teachers – that tax spenders are roughly as numerous as tax payers; but in State elections, all of them have equal votes!

Why not choose more of the electors – up to 535 of them – by congressional districts? Maine and Nebraska are the only States which do this, if I am not out of date. Presumably, the citizens know the residents of their own districts better than they know people from other districts; because some districts are rural and some are industrial and some are cities, the result should be that the electors are widely different, too.

Why do we have a president elected for a limited term, rather than a monarch serving indefinitely? Because we want to have a competent, conscientious executive, not merely a harmless figurehead. Is that what we get? No, we get fiercely ambitious professional campaigners: F.D.R., Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43. Those who have made their reputations in other careers, Eisenhower (perhaps!), Carter, Reagan, are few.

Another obvious point; presidential campaigns are very, very expensive, and for all except one candidate, the money is wasted. Why are they expensive? Obviously, because the candidates are trying to influence enormous numbers of widely different people.
A system that costs a great deal and gives poor results is hardly a credit to these United States!

However, both of these complaints exist only because some of the States have willfully corrupted the process, by instructing their electors to follow the popular vote. The popular vote is more or less guaranteed to be misguided; for one thing, the States allow office-holders – tax spenders! – to vote, and for another, they allow senior citizens to vote, even though they cannot judge between candidates aged 40 or 50, and they are liable to have very short-term interests.

What would actually be an improvement would be to follow the intent of Article II and Amendment XII, which both require that the lists of persons for whom the electors have voted be “sealed” and that the president of the Senate “open” said lists. Why must they be sealed? Because the intention is that the electors vote in camera, not in public: why specify that the electors shall not include office-holders, if the electors are not to use their own best judgment? If no-one knows which candidates have the most votes, then there is no unseemly quarrelling – as in Bush vs. Gore in 2000.

Following the mandates of the Constitution would indeed mean that there would be an agonizing delay between the voting of the electors and the counting of the votes by the president of the Senate. However, a brief period of uncertainty and speculation would be a trivial price to pay for the assurance that only people who were highly regarded by citizens who actually know them could ever be chosen president.

Is the constitutional system democratic (as opposed to Democratic?) The Constitution is democratic here, and everywhere else; always, the first word belongs to the many (the legislators, in the U. S. government.) But it is not Democratic, if that implies the majority voting itself privileges at the expense of the remainder: the only privileges authorized by the Constitution are in favor of minorities, such as bankrupts, inventors, writers.

The system that has been instituted de facto means that the choosing of candidates – persons who might possibly become president – has been privatized: it is done by the parties, not the States. Is not privatization a Good Thing, because it avoids or reduces the spending of public funds? No, it is not: the political parties met in convention are schizophrenic: they are choosing not so much the person who would be the best executive, but the person who would be the best campaigner (no one has ever denied that Clinton was, and is, an excellent campaigner!)