Containing Trump
Re “No electoral college revolt,” editorial, Dec. 16
Contrary to your warning of “a serious constitutional crisis,” the 12th Amendment instructs that if no candidate were to receive an electoral college majority, the House of Representatives would determine the president.
Donald Trump would still likely emerge the victor in such a situation, but the precedent of faithless electors in the election of the most unhinged and inexperienced president in a lifetime sends a very clear and necessary statement that he should not govern by his own mandate.
The stakes are very high. Trump’s statements and behavior demonstrate his willingness to use intimidation and brinksmanship in a world where such conduct can lead to very serious consequences. Richard Havenick San Pedro
I do not agree that the electoral college should not vote against Trump.
Aside from his temperamental unfitness to serve as president, there are two important things that should disqualify him: the Russian interference in the election and the fact that he lost the popular vote by more than 2.8 million votes.
It is lawful and important for the electors to prevent this dangerous, erratic man from becoming our president. Imagine Trump in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Ann Edelman Woodland Hills Re “Fix the election system,” Opinion, Dec. 16
The only support that Kenneth Jost can muster for his remarkable argument that the electoral college is unconstitutional is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds vs. Sims.
In that 1964 case, the justices invalidated Georgia’s apportionment scheme — where districts with greater population were underrepresented — finding that its design violates the principle of “one person, one vote.” Jost asserts that the two-century old electoral college’s “basic architecture flouts” the “principle” from this 50-year old case. As a threshold matter, the longevity of this practice is a solid indication that it is lawful.
In the 1963 case Gray vs. Sanders, Justice William O. Douglas specifically rejected the argument that the electoral college falls under the “one person, one vote” principle. He explained that despite the “inherent numerical inequality” of the electoral college, its “inclusion ... in the Constitution, as the result of specific historical concerns,” did not place it under the same regime as the states.
Jost’s argument is not supported by text, history or precedent. Josh Blackman Houston The writer is an associate professor at South Texas College of Law, where he specializes in constitutional law and the Supreme Court.
The current system is responsible for political gridlock because the national campaigns ignore all the states they know they will win or lose, reinforcing the local majority. Local media cater to that majority, stifling political dialogue, which is why residents of red and blue states see the world very differently.
The Democrats should take up abolition or reform of the electoral college as the civil rights issue of the 21st century and let the GOP be on the wrong side of history. Scott S. Smith West Hollywood