Revisions needed in Electoral College

I have read with interest the many comments about the Electoral College. Since its creation was an appeasement to slaveholding states, its value should be looked at skeptically, at the least.

For those who suggest that the Electoral College provides some kind of check on the process, I suggest some changes to how this all works:

First, I would reccomend that the Electoral College vote come into play only if no candidate received a majority of the popular votes cast. This would have triggered an electoral vote in recent history, when Bill Clinton received 43 percent of the vote, and in both elections of George W. Bush, where he received less than 50 percent of the total votes cast.

Historically, most significantly this would have come into play in 1860, when Abraham Lincoln received 39 percent of the votes cast.

Second, there is no reason why states should each employ different ways of selecting electors to a national election. Electors should be selected via the same method in all 50 states.

Finally, states should be allowed to hold their state and local elections any way they see fit; however, national elections should be conducted under the auspices of the federal government, and each state's voters should be bound by the same requirements.

I think these changes would make the national election process fairer and in keeping with the will of the people.

Also, to those who have written in defense of the Electoral College, presumably because your candidate won, remember that if you voted for Trump in Illinois, your vote had no effect on the election whatsoever, because of the Electoral College.

Dr. Robert Lupo

Palatine