What an odd editorial. The headline says “Voters should have a say in how president is elected,” yet the editorial argues against the direct election of the president, and for maintaining the electoral college system that propelled George W. Bush into the White House despite losing the popular vote.
Yeah, I know, what the Seattle Times editorial board says it is saying is that voters here should get a direct vote on whether we want to be part of a national compact assuring that voters here get a direct vote on the presidency. But by pushing for a referendum or initiative to overturn this recently passed legislation, the Times is also arguing against the legislation itself.
This was a big thing done with little public notice, and is disturbing in its implications.
The unsigned editorial’s author doesn’t bother to explain exactly what these disturbing implications are… nor how such a “big thing” slipped by with so “little public notice.” As VGood astutely observes in the editorial’s comment thread:
So Seattle Times, you have people that cover Olympia, how come this wasn’t given more press in the Times?
Touché, VGood. Touché. The Senate bill was introduced in January. A similar House bill first received a public hearing way back on February 5. The Times had three months to warn readers about the bill’s disturbing implications… how much more “public notice” do they need?
Personally, I’d rather presidential candidates consider my vote just as important as those from crucial swing states like Ohio and Florida. And if I were an Eastern Washington Republican, I imagine I’d be damn happy to know that my vote for WA’s eleven electors wasn’t made futile by a sea of votes from dirty, Seattle liberals. Perhaps that explains why an overwhelming 77 percent of Washington voters support National Popular Vote legislation?
But, you know, nobody has their finger on the pulse of the Washington electorate like those populists at the Times, so maybe I have this issue, and the politics surrounding it, completely wrong?