The Boston Globe has this column by Jeff Jacoby in its July 16 issue. Jacoby attacks the National Popular Vote Plan in a piece that is not analytical. He talks grandly about the need for avoid “tyranny of the majority”. The tyranny of the majority is checked by the U.S. Constitution, which protects minorities from having their rights abridged by a popular majority. The problem of the tyranny of the majority has nothing to do with the electoral college. The problem with the electoral college is that sometimes it gives us a “tyranny of the minority.” As bad as tyranny of the majority is, tyranny of the minority is even worse.
The sole issue in the Electoral College debate is whether the U.S. should use a system in which the person who comes in second can take office, instead of the person who comes in first. No one can really defend that idea that the person who comes in second should take office, so proponents of the existing system always try to change the subject and rely on emotion instead of analysis.
Jacoby tries to pooh-pooh the problem with the 2000 election. He says the difference between Gore’s popular vote and Bush’s popular vote was “miniscule.” The margin was 537,179 votes, a number that is not “miniscule.” In 2000, there were 10 states which cast fewer votes for president than 537,179: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, as well as D.C.
