NYT Hacks, Electoral College Edition: Hey, Let’s Blame EVERYTHING on Slavery

Modern leftists have a habit of blaming things they don’t like on slavery — like Harry Reid, D-Nev. (F, 2%) with opponents of Obamacare. Today’s lesson in “but slavery” is The New York Times on the Electoral College. The Times Editorial Board echoes the 2016 leftist narrative that the Electoral College was created to give “slave states” more power.

The notion is plainly not true, nor supported by the historical record. The Electoral College was designed to give smaller states, slave or not, a more equal say in the selection of the executive branch. It is a guardian against mob rule by pure democracy. It has worked well — remarkably so this year.

Here’s what the Times Editorial Board had to say:

The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin. When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes.

There is so much wrong with this statement. It is hard to know where to begin. The first fact, ignored by the Times, is the vast majority of states were slave states at the time of the Constitution. Only five of the thirteen states — Vermont did not join the Union until 1791 — had fully or partially abolished slavery by law at the time of the Constitutional Convention. Those states were Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Of those states, only Massachusetts had abolished slavery completely. The other four enacted laws gradually abolishing slavery, and there were chattel slaves in those states until the 1800s.

Contrary to what the Times would have you believe, only one of the 13 states present at the Constitutional Convention was a true “free state.”

The abhorrent 3/5 provision had more to do with apportioning seats in the House of Representatives than the Electoral College.

The proposal for apportionment for the determination of each state’s number of seats in the House of Representatives became an issue when the Constitution was being drafted in 1787. Aside from being a complex system and method for calculating the population through the census and then establishing a number of seats for representation, the issue as to who was eligible to be counted for the population was a topic of controversy. However, it is no surprise that this agreement is known as the Three-Fifths Compromise, for the Constitution itself was born out of compromise between the Framers of the Constitution.

This fact doesn’t fit the leftist narrative stating, “Everything that is bad in the United States is because of slavery.” Which, of course, is a lazy argument. The Times Editorial Board further explains what they really want, which is the National Popular Vote initiative. By calling the Electoral College racist, they think they can get their way. How did that work for them this election?

Unfortunately for the Times, the real reason the Electoral College exists is the exact problem they have with it. The Electoral College was a solution to stop the country from devolving into a mobocracy. The founders studied history and realized that previous pure democracies descended into majority mob rule. That’s why the Electoral College is there. It was to give smaller states (remember all of the states but Massachusetts were slave states at the time) a more equal say in the government. It is the same reason why there is a U.S. Senate and not a unicameral legislature found in many Westminster parliamentary systems.

The Times asks:

Conservative opponents of a direct vote say it would give an unfair edge to large, heavily Democratic cities and states. But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas?

The answer is because we are a federal republic of semi-sovereign independent states. The federal government was never meant to supplant the state government as a primary governing body. It was envisioned to provide for the common defense and ease interstate commerce. It was, by and large, a mutual defense and free trade pact. People in different states, while all American, have different values. The Electoral College and the Senate ensure those values have a seat at the federal table.

In effect, the Electoral College is the furthest thing from racism. It is a most elegant solution for representing the rights of the minority. (For more from the author of “NYT Hacks, Electoral College Edition: Hey, Let’s Blame EVERYTHING on Slavery” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.