John C. Chalberg makes a tightly reasoned if ultimately unconvincing argument in favor of the Electoral College ("The much-denigrated Electoral College does its job," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 29). Indeed, it is the best such effort I've seen among the many attempts to smear lipstick on this particular pig. The defect that makes the Electoral College so odious is that, excepting only Maine and Nebraska, states vote their electoral votes in a block. My suggestion: Require states to submit electoral votes in proportion, to the nearest whole vote, to the popular vote in that state. Even deep red North Dakota would be obliged to have one of its three votes go blue. Similarly, California would need to submit some Republican votes to represent the many Californians who vote that way.
The advantage of this tweak in the Electoral College is that it would truly do what Chalberg claims for the Electoral College: Require politicians to appeal to voters no matter where they reside. No more "battleground" states to be overwhelmed by politicking. No more elections decided by a few voters in a single county in Florida. Alas, this tweak would likely require a constitutional amendment, making it as hard as doing what would be best: abolishing the doggone thing altogether.
James Watson, Maplewood
• • •
Without question, Chalberg is a far better student of the Electoral College than I. But I do know a few things and I think his use of original language obfuscates its meaning.
First, the founders did not trust the electorate, even though composed of fellow white male landowners, to always make good decisions. If in the eyes of the leaders they thought a really bad decision had been made, they wanted a circuit breaker — the Electoral College.
It has been recently argued to me that the purpose of the Electoral College was to protect citizens from less populated regions from the tyranny of highly populated (liberal) urban centers. I'm quite sure that is not what the founders had in mind. At the time of our founding the vast majority of citizens were rural and agrarian. Our preindustrial founders had no way to anticipate the rise of cities.
The last I heard it was citizens who vote, not the land.
Gregory Hestness, Minneapolis
• • •
It's rarely mentioned, but the most important benefit of the Electoral College is that it prevents wide-scale cheating. Consider the following scenario if we changed the presidential election to a popular vote. It's 2028, and we're in Massachusetts, where the Democrats control all the state apparatus for recording and counting the votes. They remember 2024, when the Republicans in Alabama reported an unbelievable margin of victory for the Republican presidential candidate, and there are rumors that the Republicans plan to do it again. Are we to believe that the Democrats would not engage in cheating to offset the Republican cheating?
Under our present system, there is no motivation to run up the vote totals in states that are solidly blue or red. The only states where cheating might influence the outcome are a handful of swing states. Yet those are precisely the states where the Democrats and Republicans are almost equal in strength, and the attention of the national press is focused. Both of those factors make cheating difficult, and so our citizens believe the election results, even when the differences are razor-thin.