On direct democracy

The defense of the electoral college in the Nov. 22 editorial isn’t much better than the defense given earlier this fall. That editorial overlooked the main issue: Why was the electoral college established? Even the Nov. 22 editorial only addresses that question near the end, where it mentions Alexander Hamilton’s reasoning in support of the electoral college: that it acted “as a brake on a fractious, undisciplined democracy driven and riven by its passions. The electoral college, introduced in the 18th century, still performs that function in the 21st.”

The point seems to be that the founders didn’t trust the voters (all white male property owners), and we shouldn’t trust the voters today. The founders wanted the elites, not the voters, to select the president. That doesn’t seem like a valid principle for the 21st century.

The Nov. 22 editorial also states that the electoral college doesn’t exist “apart from the rest of the constitutional system.” Then it adds in supporting that position: “Change one element, and you affect them all. Jettison the electoral college, and you undermine the two-party system.” No, there was no two-party system when the Constitution was written, so it is not part of the “constitutional system,” whatever that means. The advent of the two-party system and the advent of selection of electors by voters have made the founders’ fears of direct democracy much less valid.

No, direct democracy isn’t a ”theoretical model not yet fully designed, let alone tested.” It is used in every state to select the governor. Direct democracy isn’t new, so why in the 21st century is it being called an untested and dangerous invention? TOM DICKSON Heber Springs