Electoral College limits third parties

In response to my request for comments on the U.S. Electoral College, Kevin Martin wrote he believes it should be abolished (Fence Post, April 22).

There are many who would agree. It is certainly plausible to state that the person with the most popular votes should be declared the winner. So it is easy to oppose a system which can negate that.

What Martin and those who agree with him disregard is this: The Electoral College makes it nearly impossible for third party candidates to win the presidency. They certainly can be spoilers, which did not bother Martin when Clinton won his first term, but are harmful when Nader cost Al Gore an Electoral College victory.

Allow me to remind Mr. Martin and others of the law of unintended consequences.

If we were to abolish the Electoral College, admittedly imperfect, who can guarantee its replacement will be perfect?

Here is what would happen: Third parties, previously formed by non-mainstream candidates, would suddenly become viable.

You would see the Democratic and Republican parties splintered into offshoots who felt underrepresented in mainstream politics.

There would be liberals, conservatives, environmentalists, blacks, gays, Hispanics and religious fundamentalists forming their own parties.

It could be very difficult to achieve 35 percent of the popular vote. Yes, the two with more votes than the others would have a run-off election, but the winner would not be choice of the majority.

Suppose the run-off result was 50.4 percent to 49.6 percent?

There would have to be a recount and you can bet every nickel you have that the loser of the recount would claim fraud.

The framers of the Constitution intended less populous states to have a fair share of the power in a republic, hence only two senators per state and an Electoral College.

James R. Schaefer

Mount Prospect