There has been a lot of discussion over the years about the role and relevancy of the Electoral College, that odd invention, unique to America. Why bother, one wonders? What's it good for? It's a rubber stamp, a formality. Technically there is no president until the EC meets and votes but that hasn't stopped Bush--or any other president-elect--from acting as if it's a done deal.

And why not? The parties control the electors and have since they were formed early in the 19th century. The electors do as they're told, a system that resulted in the first known case of presidential election-theft (by Republicans, naturally) in the infamous Hayes/Tilden campaign of 1876. Why should anyone take the EC seriously?

The Constitution, that's why.

Article II, which established the EC, says nothing about the electors having to follow the popular will, the party's will, or anybody else's but their own. They cast their votes in secret and they can vote for whoever. The decision is entirely theirs, and so is the responsibility. They are America's electoral jury--the law may guide them but in the end they can do whatever they want to do.

Now, one of the arguments advanced to justify the EC came from the conservative Hamiltonian wing who were nervous about popular elections. They thought that allowing the hoi-polloi to vote for their representatives was quite enough of a risk to take with the governance of a new country under a new system that hadn't been tried since the fall of Ancient Greece. Letting them vote for president was, they thought, tantamount to granting liberty to chaos. The EC, populated, they figured, by men of rank, breeding, and power in the community, would act as a check on what they feared most: the rise of a charismatic populist figure--a demogogue--who would lead the masses in a revolt against the men of rank, breeding and power in the community.

Parenthetically, it has always been hard for people who worship money to believe that there are people who don't. They are absolutely convinced that, deep in our hearts, we have the same greedy dreams they have and--given half a chance--would be just as unscrupulous as they have been to achieve them. The Hamiltonians, all of whom were heavily schooled in Roman history, had the lesson of the Gracchi before them, the populist uprising that terrified the Roman plutocrats even more than the slave rebellion led by Spartacus. All the slaves wanted was freedom, but the Gracchi wanted land distribution. The plutocrats then--just as do the ones currently surrounding Emperor Jr--thought that though the slaves might murder them in their beds, the Gracchis would steal their money which was much worse. Servants of Moloch throughout history have maintained, in the teeth of all available evidence, their steadfast conviction that everybody is as greedy and ruthless as they are; that beliefs of honor, spirituality, generosity, tolerance, equality and brotherhood only go as deep as the first available drachma.

But though their belief was based on their hysterical fear of an unlikely eventuality, still, they had a point. Psychology--and the history of the last century--have demonstrated pretty conclusively that, as Goering said, the masses can be easily led to the most outrageous excesses, much more easily than individuals can be led there. To some extent, the idea that a body should exist for the express purpose of putting the brakes on when the masses are being led over a cliff is a good one.

Since there is no other possible excuse for their existence these days, one is entitled to demand that they live up to the one duty they have left: to protect us from ourselves.

I therefore call upon the EC to do its Constitutional duty and reject, in the name of The People, the election of the worst president in US history. The Kool Aid Drinkers and Bush Cultuists will hate you but your grandchildren will honor your name for centuries.

What d'ya say? Do it for posterity. Do it because it's the right thing to do and you know it. Do it just because you can. But do it.

You're our last hope.