Electoral College needs fixing

I strongly agree with recent contributor Robert Meale that our Electoral College concept is what we need to provide fair balance among states with various-sized populations, and to promote quick election results.

Just imagine the case of a very close tally in a national popular vote. Every state would be required to recount. The likelihood increases that numerous court battles would ensue, and the results of the election would likely not be determined for many months. Meanwhile, important activities of our government may be suspended or disputed until election results are finally ruled upon by some high level courts.

But, in reality, the way our current Electoral College system has developed is defective. We allow states to determine how their popular vote is used to allocate their electoral votes. Unfortunately, almost all of them have gone with "winner-take all". Thus, the few very highly populated states with large numbers of electors throw all of them to one candidate, even if their popular vote might only be 51 percent to 49 percent. Electors provided by all of the less populated states can thus be neutralized by just one or two large states that send 100 percent of their electoral votes to one party even if their popular votes were close.

The present "winner take all" system thereby violates the principle of fairness our forefathers intended. It violates the concept of "one man, one vote". It makes results much more likely that a loser of the popular vote is declared the winner of the election. And it distorts the power of one party over another. These conditions generate a lack of trust among the voting public. States must be required to allocate electors based on the proportion of their popular vote.

Richard Cichanski

Palatine