It’s the support for briefing the electors that sticks out. What is it that entitles electors to a briefing on classified material that other citizens cannot view? Electors don’t really have any particular qualifications in intelligence; for the most part, they are simply politically active people chosen by their state parties, or sometimes they are elected. In any case, they’re not elected to assess intelligence. They are elected for one purpose, which is to vote for whomever their state’s voters select. That points to a second question: What would the electors going to do with whatever information they glean from such a briefing? [...]
Democrats are understandably upset about an election in which, for the second time in five elections, their candidate won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote. There are some people who believe that the Electoral College ought to be abolished, a legitimate political goal. But the electors’ letter, and Podesta’s just-asking-questions endorsement of it, seems to be geared toward changing the rules in the middle of the game, in the hopes of convincing electors to change their votes in defiance of the intentions of voters as expressed in the existing system, and sometimes in defiance of laws that bind them.
The public deserves to know as much as it can about any interference in elections without endangering national security. But why should should electors learn that separately?
No comments:
Post a Comment