Electoral college pros, cons

Re “Electoral college? Try electoral relic,” Opinion, Oct. 15

Jonathan Chait’s argument against the electoral college failed to mention the most egregious aspect of the process: it subverts democracy. It makes an utter mockery of the principle of one man, one vote.

Consider that California has a population of roughly 36.1 million. The state has 55 electoral votes, which means that each electoral vote represents 656,000 people. Wyoming, on the other hand, has a population of about 509,000. Wyoming has three electoral votes, which means that each vote represents 170,000 people. What this gives us is a situation that, when voting for president, a Wyoming resident casts a vote that carries 3.9 times as much weight as a Californian’s vote. Think about that the next time you watch the electoral college tote board on election day.

FRANK MCMILLAN

Los Angeles

*

States control a voter registration process that is too susceptible to fraud. Imagine such states as California, New York or Illinois controlled by a Democratic Party that decides to look the other way while activists register tens of thousands of illegal immigrants. Under the electoral college, at least this kind of fraud is confined to the number of electoral votes of those states and would not add net new electoral votes for Democrats. However, if all votes are thrown into a national pool, then there would be enormous incentives to register illegal voters to cast fraudulent votes. Unless there is federal control of elections, combined with a national identification card and a serious system of controls and penalties to reduce the likelihood of fraud, the electoral college should continue to exist.

DAVID BARULICH

Los Angeles