Published 3:04 pm, Friday, January 12, 2018
Electoral College right for a republic
The January 11 op-ed by Tom Gildersleeve (“Campaign money distorts representation,” Connecticut Post, Jan. 11), while well written, is deeply flawed. Gildersleeve takes a swipe at the electoral college, freedom of speech and current campaign financing through largely personal/corporate donations.
It seems, perhaps, that there is some confusion on Gildersleeve’s part as to the form our government takes: a republic as opposed to a democracy.
Ours is a republic form of representative government and the Electoral College is consistent with that as opposed to a simple popular majority vote — as in a democracy.
As for freedom of speech, contrary to Gildersleeve, I have free speech rights whether or not I am heard.
Gildersleeve posits that “if you can’t be heard” free speech is then useless.
He links this, arbitrarily, to campaign finance, advocating for public financing of all political campaigns, replacing current personal and corporate contributions, which he says, “obstructs the ability of people to be heard …”
How he concludes that I don’t follow.
Gildersleeve concludes that, “If we want to preserve representative government” then campaign finance change is needed and “(have) government fund them” (exclusively).
He is very silent on the matter of the huge and unrealistic bite out of local, state and federal taxes that would be required. And the question is, Why should my taxes fund the campaign of someone who opposes our way of government?
Paul G. Littlefield