The founding fathers built an imperfect system that, with lurches and stumbles, has survived since the US constitution was written in 1787. I’m sure even they would be surprised at their own success. Many of the decisions made were based on compromise, and the electoral college (Editorial, 4 November) is a perfect example of this. Giving small states (basically separate countries at the time) a disproportionate voice in the election of a chief executive was supposed to help prevent a majority from oppressing a minority. Due to unforeseeable circumstances, mostly based on modern economic and geographic factors, we now face an oppressive but empowered minority because of the electoral college.
I agree that something should be done to make voting in presidential elections more fair and meaningful. However, I am not in favour of completely abolishing the electoral college. Rather, I would prefer to see a system in place more like that used in Maine or Nebraska: apportion some of the votes by congressional district while still giving the two “senatorial” votes to the overall popular vote winner of the state. This would open up at least part of nearly every state for meaningful voting, while still protecting the compromise inherent in the system. Unfortunately, gerrymandering still makes this impractical, so it would only work if it included impartial, nonpartisan drawing of congressional districts.
Robert A Brown
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
• In every US election – whether for a governor or senator or mayor or dog-catcher – each constituent’s vote counts to the same degree, except of course for the presidential race, in which the weight of your vote depends entirely upon your location within the constituency. That’s not democracy, and that should be reason enough to ditch it.
Brian Murtagh (overseas US voter)
Banbury, Oxfordshire
