Electoral College well past its prime

In response to James R. Schaefer (Fence Post, April 14), I have always believed the Electoral College is well past its prime.

It is ridiculous when we see the same candidates just campaigning in the same swing states.

When the U.S. is trying to spread free elections across the world, those elections are based on the greatest number of votes received. Only in a U.S. presidential election can someone receive 500,000 votes more than his opponent and still lose.

We don't have anything resembling an Electoral College in a state or local election.

Bill Clinton won in the same way we promote elections around the world in that he received the most votes.

Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote in 1992 while Clinton took 43 percent and Bush 38 percent. It's possible that Perot took enough votes from the elder Bush to swing the election to Clinton. And to a lesser extent, possibly the same thing happened in 1996.

Without a doubt though, it is safe to say that Ralph Nader took enough votes that would have been destined for Al Gore in Florida in 2000.

If only the person who received the most votes in the 2000 election had actually won, we all would have been spared what has been, most likely, the worst presidency in U.S. history.

But did John Anderson take enough votes away from Jimmy Carter in 1980? Yes, I know Anderson was a Republican but he was a progressive Republican. No one could confuse Anderson's progressive agenda with Reagan's agenda.

And did George Wallace take away enough votes from Hubert Humphrey in 1968?

In many elections around the world, there is a runoff between the top two vote-getters to determine the winner.

In addition to eliminating the Electoral College, a runoff for elections where at least one candidate did not attain 50 percent of the vote would be of great interest.

Kevin Martin

Schaumburg