Basing election on geographic area is nonsense

Regarding the letter, “Electoral College was a stroke of genius”: The writer denigrates population centers (blue states) by decrying their high levels of crime, food stamp use, etc., contending that they therefore should not have the political influence that their population size allows them. He argues that geography should be a more important consideration in elections than population; I guess because areas with greater population are areas with more problems.

First of all, the proposition that elections should be based on geographic area (number of square miles) rather than population (number of people) is ridiculous on its face, and obviously non-democratic. Democracy was a new idea when our Founders wrote the Constitution, and the more cautious among them managed to place some restraints on the popular will. Now, however, we elect our senators directly and have extended the vote to non-landholders, women and others who are not white men. “Because the Founders did it” is not a good enough reason to support it.

Secondly, anyone not relying on fake news sources can quickly find out that crime rates — both violent crime and property crime — have been higher in red states than in blue states, food stamp usage rates have been higher in red states, education levels have been lower in red states, red states have higher levels of poverty than blue states and higher rates of divorce, and so on. Red states are the largest recipients of federal tax dollars; blue states contribute the most to federal coffers. Using the writer’s (faulty) logic, it would seem that it’s the red states — the areas with lower population density — who should not be allowed to “dictate” to the rest of us.

Bill Norman

Edmonds