Electoral College: Change or Remove It?

Although I voted for Gov. George W. Bush, it will be a real turnoff if he becomes president with fewer popular votes than Al Gore. The electoral college is an 18th century anachronism that was designed to give more clout to the smaller states within the original 13 colonies. In the 21st century U.S., the electoral college is archaic baggage that gives more leverage to voters from states like Florida, where the margin was razor-thin, than voters from landslide New York. Some of the margins in dead-even states like Wisconsin and Michigan were so infinitesimal that those who voted for the losing candidate were essentially disenfranchised because of the winner-take-all rules. Everyone’s vote should count the same.

Let’s never again endure this ballet of the absurd. The first act of the new government in January should be the abolition of the electoral college through passage of a constitutional amendment.

MICHAEL A. SCOTT

Glendora

*

The electoral college is not the problem. The winner-take-all rules within the electoral college system are the problem. A look at the map with election results makes it obvious that Middle America will not vote for abolishing the college should a constitutional amendment be presented. Yet, in a spirit of fairness, Middle America would probably approve changing the rules so that each state delegation truly reflected the voting within the state.

CAROL HOWARD

Huntington Beach

*

Regarding your Nov. 9 commentary by Jonathan Koppell, “Some States Are More Equal Than Others”: Yes, it is true. But it is not due to some arbitrary and unreasonable effect. It is due to the intended foundation of the country that we are a nation made up of states of different sizes.

The electoral college is so intended that the big states not trample the rights and opportunities of the small states. It is intended to support fairness within a diverse nation of states of varying sizes and political interests. It is to assure that a couple of big states, with big populations, cannot join together to overwhelm a large number of smaller states. It assures that a potential president appeal to a vast and diverse array of voters, to try to win electoral votes in a variety of states of different sizes and composition. It has worked well for 200 years. Let’s keep it going.

VICTOR HAVERLY

Ventura

*

While at first analysis the electoral college may seem out of place in the 21st century, a constitutional amendment to change it would have dire consequences. Minority parties of all persuasions would flourish. A president could be elected with 40% of the popular vote or even less. The possibility of government by coalition or deals made between the winner of the popular vote and minority party candidates is frightening.

The founding fathers had their own 18th century ideas when they created the electoral college. Like it or not, imperfect as it may be, it has worked for over 200 years and still does.

ALAN MATIS

Sherman Oaks

*

The electoral college is like one’s appendix. We only think to remove it when there is a problem. With our country in jeopardy of electing the next leader of the free world with less than a one-person, one-vote consensus, the problem has arrived.

KIP GILMAN

Malibu

*

The election problem is now so serious and complex that an unusual settlement is needed. To follow established legal procedures will leave half of the nation dissatisfied.

The disputed elections of 1824 and 1876 were settled by political deals. I suggest that the Gore and Bush sides meet and come up with a settlement (political deal) that will be in the nation’s interest. Such an agreement would be authoritative and fair. They have until Dec. 18 when the electoral college meets.

One man would become president; the other would become a hero. The loser-hero could be consoled by the fact that in similar elections in 1824 and 1888 the losers won the next election.

That might be the most satisfaction we can get.

PORTER EWING

Professor of History

L.A. City College