The first lady, and now Senator Hillary Clinton, called for the abolition of the electoral college and, with it, the formula for indirect presidential elections in the United States: "We must elect the winner of the popular vote as president, just like for any other position."
Thus, Hillary finally heard the voice of the former head of the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, and since 2016 - Ambassador-at-Large, who oversees elections in foreign countries, V.E.
Churov.
Ten years ago, in response to accusations of witchcraft and sorcery during the elections, Churov answered: "But you have blacks lynched."
That is, "But your elections are indirect."
Whereas in civilized Russia the president is elected by a four-tailed, that is, by direct, equal, secret and universal suffrage.
The Americans were ashamed and admitted he was right.
Of course, Hillary, among other things, could have personal reasons.
In 2016, she was in the lead in the popular vote (the then head of France, Hollande, even congratulated her on her election with joy), however, when the electoral tally went, Trump won.
So she has no reason to particularly like the electoral college.
But she no longer has a personal interest in the future - her voters in the next world have long been looking for lanterns.
Rather, it defends the long-term interests of the party.
Four years ago, in November 2016, Democrats already proposed ending the college.
Senator Boxer introduced the relevant bill with the following explanation: “This is the only institution in which you can get more votes and still lose the fight for the presidency.
The electoral college is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect the state of our modern society, and it must be changed immediately. "
Now, of course, this sounds like a compliment to an archaic institution.
The fact that the arithmetic majority is one thing, and the victory in the elections is another, is found very often, and not only in the United States.
May be essentially mockery, but formally correct.
Whereas in this year's elections there were already big problems with formal correctness.
When such ballot fraud is used, controversy about the electoral model - with the electors or directly - becomes irrelevant.
With the one who stole the silver spoons, do not enter into a discussion about the chemical properties of silver.
However, Hillary is looking to the future.
Whether in the next leap years there will be the same sleight of hand to correct the mistakes of fortune, we do not know.
Maybe this will become the norm, but maybe the rule "rot, rot - don't break" will work.
To make a very rude cheating policy à la longue is risky - they themselves have candelabra.
Whereas a change in the entire electoral mechanism would allow - and on a completely legal basis, no international commission will undermine - to use an objective and inexorable demographic factor.
The core electorate of the Republicans is white American "quilted jackets", whose share in the general population is declining.
The core electorate of the Democrats is, among other things, pleasantly dark-skinned.
Both native Americans and migrants, whose share in the total population is growing.
Moreover, the promotion of immigration is an important part of the democratic program.
The leaders take care of increasing their electorate.
You can't argue against demography, the process is objective.
But at the same time not fast enough.
If you want more, then in addition to the demographic factor, you can use legislative innovations.
Moreover, the institution of electors is indeed quite archaic - it appeared in the 18th century, when there was not only an electric Internet, but even an electric telegraph.
Horse mail only.
The modernization of the presidential elections would be, in the opinion of many, a logical enough step.
Moreover, a similar modernization of the senatorial estate took place a century ago.
Instead of the founding fathers' order in which senators were elected by state legislatures, in 1912 the matter was entrusted to a popular vote, making the election of senators direct.
And it seems that nothing terrible has happened.
Why not do the same with the presidential elections?
It is, of course, so, but the current order is quite conservative.
It grants more rights to individual states.
Including the states "red", they are white, republican and "wadded".
You have to run around with them and please them.
Whereas during the popular vote, only the total vote count will be in effect.
Which already gives the Democrats an advantage now, and in the future, unless something extraordinary happens, will give them even more.
So it is timely and profitable to stick to the people's party.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.