Letters to the Editor: Slapping down arguments for keeping the Senate and electoral college
To the editor: The letter writer who cautions against abolishing the electoral college has it backward. Because of the electoral college and gerrymandering, we now have tyranny of the minority.
If we use the popular vote to determine elections, every voter has the same say, and the candidate with the majority of the votes wins. It doesn’t matter how the population is distributed. The electoral college has allowed the loser of the popular vote to take office; the last time a Republican won the popular vote was in 2004.
As for the argument for preserving the Senate, each state having two senators has created a situation where Democrats represent some 40 million more voters than Republicans, even though that body is split 50-50. This gives voters in smaller states much greater say.
Finally, the writer says she should be able to carry a gun when protesting. Millions of people the world over manage to protest just fine without being armed, and the presence of such weapons increases the chance of violence and tragedy.
Dodi Palmer, Long Beach
To the editor: A letter writer believes that if the electoral college is abolished, “New York and California [will] effectively run the country.”
I maintain that without the electoral college, candidates would aggressively campaign in heavily populated states, seeking the votes of millions or tens of millions of voters, rather than the votes of tens or hundreds of thousands of voters.
No, you should not “still be able to carry a gun without law enforcement taking it away,” not with gun deaths in this country running at an unchecked pandemic rate. And if you’re trying to hang onto an assault rifle, turn it in.
Finally, no, Wyoming should not “have the same representation in the U.S. Senate as California.” Name another advanced democracy that allows something like this.
Frederick Glasser, Orange