Readers React

Electoral College widens America's partisan divide

To the editor: Amen to George Skelton's criticisms of the Electoral College. I'll add another: The winner-takes-all aspect of the current system is why there aren't more purple states. ("Winner-take-all electoral system is a loser for democracy," Jan. 21)

Because neither party bothers to mount much of a presidential campaign in the states that are either red or blue, there is little public debate on the issues and the status quo is reinforced in the dominant media that cater to the majority.

That's a big reason Democrats and Republicans don't understand each other, so progress toward a more fully informed electorate everywhere and breaking the partisan deadlock would be greatly enhanced by not automatically disenfranchising the minority.

Scott S. Smith, West Hollywood


To the editor: Has Skelton never heard of diversity or minority rights?

Many of the states with a lot of electoral votes have large, diverse minority populations that now influence the outcome because they have appreciable power in those states. A popular vote would disenfranchise them.

Edward Gilbert, Studio City


To the editor: Skelton is correct in his assessment that our current electoral vote system needs to be changed, but his proposal for states to give their electoral votes to the popular-vote winner is not the answer.

Other than doing away with the Electoral College completely, the only fair way is to award electoral votes of each state by the same percentage as popular votes of that state. If a state gives one candidate 60% of the popular vote, that candidate gets 60% of the electoral votes.

This way, all votes count and none are disenfranchised.

Bob Guarrera, Laguna Niguel

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion

Copyright © 2018, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World