Electoral College and a third party

I read with amusement the response from James Schaefer regarding my view on the Electoral College.

Mr. Schaefer, you state in your view that I am disregarding the fact it is nearly impossible for third-party candidates to win an election.

My point was that the only role a third party plays in our current format of presidential elections is as a spoiler.

In more recent elections, George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader were all spoilers. It was impossible for them to win.

I believe the only third party candidate who had a reasonable chance of winning was Theodore Roosevelt and that was back in 1912.

Then, you ask how can we guarantee that a replacement to the Electoral College be perfect. Do you really believe that anyone can guarantee perfection in anything?

You have concerns that the Democrats and the Republicans could be splintered and possibly feel underrepresented. These two parties, unfortunately, are not going anywhere.

Do you really think that the Green or Libertarian parties, or any other party, have a chance to be viable?

Your hypothetical comment regarding an election in which the result would be 50.4-49.6 was especially interesting.

In 2000, Gore received 48.41 percent and Bush, as the victor, received 47.90 percent of the popular vote.

In 1996, Clinton received 49.23 percent and in 1992, he received 43.01 percent. George Bush did not even get to 51 percent in 2004. he had 50.73 percent.

So, Mr. Schaefer, I hope you have the same disdain for George Bush's victory in 2000 as you obviously do with Clinton's victories in 1992 and 1996.

But in three consecutive elections, the winner did not receive a majority of the popular vote. And in 2004, Bush barely made it.

The point remains that the Electoral College is past its prime.

Kevin Martin

Schaumburg