To the editor: It will happen occasionally that a football team will win even though it amassed fewer total yards or fewer first downs than its opponent. Does that mean that the outcome was unfair? (“The Supreme Court can’t end the electoral college, but it can stop it from getting worse,” Feb. 11)
Similarly, it is not unfair that a presidential candidate might win even though he or she amasses fewer raw votes. If the game were to maximize raw votes rather than electoral votes, campaign strategy would change dramatically.
Therefore, the raw vote counts in 2000 and 2016 are irrelevant.
Bob Wiegand, Anaheim
To the editor: From your pages to the Supreme Court justices’ ears, we can only hope.
The oft repeated solution to impeaching President Trump was to wait until November. Unfortunately that doesn’t always work out, as two out of the last five presidential elections have gone to the guy who didn’t win the popular vote.
While I can’t speak for all voters, I think I am safe in saying that we would each like our individual vote to count. The electoral college prevents that; it is an anachronism in this high-tech age.
And who knows? Maybe we would get a better turnout if we each knew our vote counted.
Jewell Jones, San Pedro