It is hardly a surprise that The New York Times wants to re-litigate the 2016 presidential election; after all, their candidate didn't win. But the solution for stopping Donald Trump now isn't to impeach him or have a better candidate run for the Democrats next time; instead, it is simply to change the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College. In an editorial calling for the change, The Grey Lady slammed the Electoral College as (naturally) racist:
Was it just a year ago that more than 136 million Americans cast their ballots for president, choosing Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by nearly three million votes, only to be thwarted by a 200-year-old constitutional anachronism designed in part to appease slaveholders and ratified when no one but white male landowners could vote?
Of course the Electoral College is not an anachronism but rather a very important feature of the system of government laid out by the Founding Fathers. In fact there was much debate about how the president should be chosen but most felt that is the House of Representatives was to be a directly-elected body of the people, the Senate a body for the states, then the election of the president should be a combination of the two -- a point James Madison made in Federalist no 39:
The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States.
Forget about history, forget about the Founding Fathers, The Times wants the change because their candidate lost. The editorial dismisses the idea that the Electoral College is a bulwark against New York City and Los Angeles picking the president while the fly-over country pounds sand; they say it was only put in there to stop the common people from picking the president.
Their solution? Bypass an official constitutional amendment and make all states vote for the popular vote winner:
A quicker and more realistic fix is the National Popular Vote interstate compact, under which states agree to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement kicks in as soon as states representing a total of 270 electoral votes sign on, ensuring that the popular vote will always pick the president.
Of course I am sure that The Times will be quick to call for the abolishment of such rules should a Republican win the popular vote but not enough states and counties to win the popular vote. Sour grapes a whole year after the election is really rather unbecoming.