New York Times says the Electoral College is racist and must be abolished

The New York Times editorial board has declared the Electoral College to be old, outdated, racist and an American "vestige" that needs to be abolished.

This after President-elect Donald Trump was officially voted by the Electoral College on Monday to become the 45th president of the United States. Still though, he lost the popular vote — by nearly 3 million votes. The discrepancy mostly reflects the polarization of urban versus rural politics, something the Times clearly wants to ignore.

According to the paper, which released a new editorial late Monday, the Electoral College must be abolished because it is an "antiquated mechanism" that doesn't promote democracy.

"Yes, Mr. Trump won under the rules, but the rules should change so that a presidential election reflects the will of Americans and promotes a more participatory democracy," the board wrote.

But more than failing to promote "participatory democracy," the Times' editorial board wrote that the Electoral College is a symbol of America's "original sin" — slavery.

"The Electoral College, which is written into the Constitution, is more than just a vestige of the founding era; it is a living symbol of America’s original sin," the board wrote. "When slavery was the law of the land, a direct popular vote would have disadvantaged the Southern states, with their large disenfranchised populations. Counting those men and women as three-fifths of a white person, as the Constitution originally did, gave the slave states more electoral votes."

The Times' editorial board went on to allege that the Electoral College actually "tips the scales" in favor of small states — like Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, North and South Dakota, Montana — and gives them a larger voice than large, progressive cities, which makes the campaign for the White House take place in a dozen or so "battleground" states.

But wait — according to the Times, there is an "elegant solution." They wrote:

There is an elegant solution: The Constitution establishes the existence of electors, but leaves it up to states to tell them how to vote. Eleven states and the District of Columbia, representing 165 electoral votes, have already passed legislation to have their electors vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The agreement, known as the National Popular Vote interstate compact, would take effect once states representing a majority of electoral votes, currently 270, signed on. This would ensure that the national popular-vote winner would become president.

The Times, however, does acknowledge why most Republicans and conservatives oppose abolishing the Electoral College: because it would give an "unfair" advantage to large, progressive, mostly Democratic cities. But the Times doesn't see any problem with that, ignoring that if the president were elected via popular vote, the small states would never have their voices heard.

"But why should the votes of Americans in California or New York count for less than those in Idaho or Texas?" the board asked, before trying to explain that abolishing the Electoral College would be good for every American.

"The system as it now operates does a terrible job of representing the nation’s demographic and geographic diversity," they wrote.

Nearly 138 million Americans went to the polls this year to vote for president, but Trump's victory turned on just 80,000 votes from Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — three toss-up states that have gone blue in recent years. But he will indeed be in the White House come next year, something most people don't understand, according to the Times.

"For most reasonable people, it’s hard to understand why the loser of the popular vote should wind up running the country," they concluded.

Trump won Monday's Electoral College vote with 304 votes. His inauguration is Jan. 20.