Electoral college editorial disappointing

I was very disappointed in your Sunday editorial supporting abolition of the Electoral College. Even the title, "The People vs. the Electoral College" was divisive and misleading. It implies an adversarial relationship when, in fact, the Electoral College gives all of the people, not just some of them, a voice. It is a stroke of brilliance that has served us well for over 200 years.

The editorial states that Illinois and Indiana received little attention in the last election because the recipient of their electoral votes was not in doubt. Ohio, on the other hand, received attention because their electoral votes were "in play." If the election was decided purely on the total vote some states, perhaps different ones, would still have been ignored. The interests of small states would always be irrelevant and all decisions would be made by populous states and big cities. With the current system, today's "irrelevant" states could be relevant in the next election.

Using your editorial's logic, is the Daily Herald also in favor of abolishing the Senate, another method of evening the influence of large and small states?

I was further disappointed by your unsupported statement that " ... historians clearly document it was designed to protect the interests of slave states." That is revisionist history. Where is the support (contemporary with the development of the Electoral College) for that position? All states (except Vermont) were slave states. Slavery did not begin to be phased out until about 1780.

The Electoral Collage was developed in about 1787 to give a voice to the small states and their concerns and was a key reason the small states supported formation of the United States. Those states were in the north (e.g., Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire and later Vermont).

Richard Parkinson

Long Grove