When she was elected, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez took an oath of office to abide by the U.S. Constitution and that includes the provisions for the Electoral College.
Until a Constitutional amendment changes or replaces the Electoral College to set up another way to elect the president, it is the law.
In her arguments against the Electoral College, she cites the principle of "one person-one vote," but that principle is not found in the Constitution and is not applicable to how we elect U.S. senators or presidential electors.
Ocasio-Cortez argues that it discriminates against minorities. In truth, it only discriminates against big states and cities (in population) as demonstrated by the provision in the Constitution giving two senators to every state regardless of population.
That means each senator in California represents almost 20 million people whereas each senator in North Dakota represents about 350,000 people.
Sounds unfair, but it is Constitutional and intentional as the writers of the Constitution wanted a bias in favor of small states so they would not be dominated by big states.
Minorities have a choice to move from big cities and states to smaller ones and avoid any perceived discrimination.
Ocasio-Cortez needs to read and understand the Constitution.
Editor's Note: In its 1964 Reynolds v. Sims case and other related rulings, the U.S Supreme Court found U.S. House and legislative districts that violated the one-person, one-vote standards were unconstitutional violations of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. That standard does not apply to Senate elections or the Electoral College.
Letters to the editor are encouraged. Send letters to email@example.com.
New Cherokee Nation principal chief says tribe won't bail the state out for a decade of fiscal irresponsibility.