Editor, Gazette-Journal:

The editor argues (“The Electoral College,” Oct. 17 Gazette-Journal) that the method we have used to elect every president since George Washington should be discarded in favor of a national popular vote. He decries the fact that sometimes the winner of the Electoral College vote doesn’t also “win” the national tally. The “national popular vote” is a contrived exercise in basic math mandated by … nothing and no one.

After rejecting a national popular vote, the 1787 convention gave the task instead to the states. The Constitution empowers the states to select their electors any way they wish. In early presidential elections, many states directly appointed their electors; gradually, each state switched to a popular vote of the state’s electors. A simple change in state law and the states could return to directly appointed electors.

Here’s what will happen if a national popular vote is adopted:

A one-size-fits-all election system will be imposed on the states by Congress.

Additional political parties will form. Four or five serious candidates will frequently split the vote, leaving no candidate with a majority (Abraham Lincoln was elected with only 40 percent of the popular vote). The Contingent Election in Congress (see Art. 2) will instead determine the presidency.

The nine largest states, containing 51 percent of Americans, will dominate every election.

Recounts of 170 million ballots in close elections will delay the official results by weeks or months.

The editor closed by insisting that a Constitutional Amendment is required to move to a national popular vote. The creators of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact disagree.

The Electoral College forces candidates to appeal to a wide swath of the country and gives the states the power to elect the President of the United STATES of America. Let’s keep it!

Gary R. Porter
Yorktown, Va.