The op-ed “How the Electoral College concentrates candidate attention and why it matters” (Sept. 22) demonstrates how the Electoral College accentuates the importance of battleground states. But it fails to point out two grievous defects in the college that distort our election results.
The first is the “winner-take-all” result in every state except Nebraska and Maine. It mandates that the winning political party in a given state gets all of that state’s electoral votes in the college, thus disenfranchising all of the state’s minority voters. It was a product of the Founding Fathers’ disdain for a national popular election and a recognition there would be no Constitution unless the numerical advantage of the states with enslaved people were recognized in allocating seats in Congress.
Second, the college takes the power of the vote out of the hands of the individual voter and places it in the hands of “electors” chosen by party officials, thus diminishing the interest of the citizenry in the electoral process. As presently constituted, the college can lead, and has led, to the loser in the national popular vote becoming president (George W. Bush versus Al Gore and Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton).
The three authors, distinguished professors, have pointed out the serious consequences of adhering to the Electoral College process but have not advocated the system that produces a just result — the national popular vote.
— Michael L. Weissman, Deerfield
A tyranny of the minority
Jane Thomas’ letter in support of the Electoral College (“The reason for Electoral College,” Sept. 30) suggests that the college guarantees low-population states a “fair chance to have the issues important to them receive at least as much attention as the high-population states” and ends with the ringing statement: “There will be no tyranny of the majority.”
Unfortunately, what we have learned over the few years is that the Electoral College, which maneuvered both Donald Trump and George W. Bush into office with less than half of the popular vote, has now allowed for an even more insidious result: the tyranny of the minority. Presidents with no clear mandate from the people enabled a takeover of the Supreme Court by minority interests.
Frankly, I’d prefer majority rule.
— Virginia Blanford, Chicago
Equivalent to obstruction
In her letter in support of the Electoral College, Jane Thomas ends by writing: “There will be no tyranny of the majority.” Instead, because of the Electoral College and the election of two recent presidents who failed to win the popular vote, we have “obstruction by the minority.”
— Holger Meerbote, Arlington Heights
Popular vote compact
I could not disagree more with Jane Thomas’ letter on the value of the Electoral College.
There are several reasons the Founders put it into the Constitution. There was a distrust of a popular vote by the citizens. Many felt that the average citizen would not have enough information to make a reasoned choice for president; many also feared the mob effect on the citizenry. Also, without the Three-Fifths Compromise, Southern states feared that the population majority in the North would dilute their votes.
The repeal of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution that deals with the Electoral College would require a constitutional amendment. That would be very difficult and could take many years to achieve. The best solution to the current situation, which sees 43 states and 80% of the population essentially ignored in a presidential election, would be the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
With the compact, states agree to give their electoral votes to the national winner of the popular vote. It would go into effect when states whose electoral votes total 270 sign the compact. Currently, 17 states, including Illinois, and the District of Columbia have signed the compact, totaling 209 votes; 61 votes are still needed.
With the compact, every state would be a battleground state. What we now have is the tyranny of the minority.
— Paul Breit, Tinley Park
Each vote should count
A recent letter explains the reasoning behind the formation of the Electoral College. It made perfect sense in 1788. The writer states that the college ensures against a “tyranny of the majority.” Is it possible that over time, it is now enabling a tyranny of the minority?
States with small populations are already well represented, especially in the Senate. A state with 39 million people has the same number of senators as a state with 700,000 people, more than fair, and I agree with that. The House is also biased toward more representation for low-population states, though not to the degree in the Senate. I also agree with this slight edge and feel it is still a fair representation.
However the Electoral College favors low-population states, which is unfair in a more pronounced way. Any bias is unfair; that being said, sometimes bias can level an unfair playing field, as exhibited by the Senate and House representation of the population.
However, the Electoral College only complicates for no reason the election of the president. The president is supposed to represent all the people. Presently, the electors are fairly selected, but the number of state electors is unfairly assigned per the present regulations. The end result is a skewed presidential outcome that in many instances disenfranchises millions of citizens.
Whatever the reasoning to support the Electoral College, I will always feel each person’s vote should be worth one vote, especially when choosing our president.
The time has come to do away with the Electoral College.
— John Segovich, Streator, Illinois
The Electoral College works
Tribune Opinion printed an excerpt from a New York Daily News editorial (Oct. 1) that surprisingly concludes that the president be elected by direct popular vote.
It says the current system gives disproportionate power to less populous states.
In fact, this is the whole point of why this system was chosen. In forming the Union, the states with smaller populations were worried that their interests would be ignored if the president were elected solely by popular vote. The states with the largest populations would control the election forever.
The worry they had can be summarized by a modern term: They didn’t want a “flyover” election process in which concentrated populations currently on both coasts always choose the president and, because of that process, have their interests favored in campaigns and in office.
The editorial describes the Nebraska electoral process that awards electoral votes by results in congressional districts. Because of this lengthy description, I thought the editorial would conclude that the Nebraska process was the best alternative to the current system.
While the Nebraska process is closer to the people, if it is adopted nationally, it is almost equivalent to having the winners of House of Representatives choose the president. We wouldn’t want to let the legislative branch to do this instead of the voters because of the resulting political intrigue.
I favor the current Electoral College rules. It has served the country well since it was adopted.
— Keith Dubas, Bloomingdale
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.