Here we go again. Another writer weighing in on the idea that we should do away with the Electoral College and elect a president by popular vote. (Feb. 6, “Electoral College, rogue members or not, isn’t democratic.”) It seems they either cannot or refuse to look beyond the end of their noses.
We’ve got to look down the road and try to foresee outcomes. Assume we went to a popular vote for electing a president. What would likely happen?
For one, no presidential candidate would waste any time or money campaigning in Wyoming, Kentucky, West Virginia, Idaho or a couple dozen other low population rural states. No. They would focus their campaigns in New York City, L.A., Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas and several other large cities, and boom, they are done. They win the election, and completely disenfranchise very large areas of the country which in no way share the views, morals and values of the inner cities.
Put another way, Hillary Clinton won California by about 4 million votes. Donald Trump won the popular vote of the other 49 states by some 2 million votes. Combined, Clinton wins the total. But that is precisely why the framers created the Electoral College in 1787, namely so that one state or area of the country could not impose their views and values on the entire rest of the nation, a large percentage of which do not share the values of Californians.
No, the Electoral College prevents the above from happening, and I truly hope we keep it in place no matter which party wins.
Ken Strain
Snohomish
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
