Letters to the Editor: How states make the electoral college even more undemocratic

Protestors gather at the state Capitol in Sacramento before California's electors cast their ballots in the 2016 election.
Protestors gather at the state Capitol in Sacramento before California’s electors cast their ballots in the 2016 election.
(Los Angeles Times)

To the editor: The U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the case of whether an elector can act as an individual in casting a vote in a presidential election. A much larger question remains unanswered: Why do most states use a winner-take-all system that goes against the principle of one person, one vote?

Only Maine and Nebraska have a method that resembles democracy. These two states award some of their electoral votes based on the winner of the popular vote in each congressional district.

The winner-take-all rule used everywhere else in the country gives great leverage to “swing” states. For example, the outcome of the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W. Bush came down to Florida, which Bush won by only 537 votes.

Getting rid of this inherently undemocratic rule used by most states is of greater urgency than what’s at issue in the Supreme Court case.

John Lane, Stanton



To the editor: The idea that individual “faithless” electors can override the majority vote of the state they’ve pledged to represent is nothing less than voter fraud. What’s to prevent these electors from choosing Mickey Mouse or their mother-in-law?

The framers of the Constitution surely had no idea that an elector’s right to choose might be allowed to overturn the intent of voters.

This smacks of the “freedom of religion” nonsense, where pharmacy employees could effectively overturn the decisions of physicians and their patients because someone’s religious sensibilities might be offended.

Quite simply, this must be stopped.

Pam Wright, Pasadena