Electoral system flawed

Is it me or am I the only one who sees a problem with our election process for president of the United States?

Every four years, the candidates spend fortunes trying to get your vote and to what purpose?

You have a candidate who gets the popular vote, but then loses because he doesn’t have enough electoral votes.

Or it’s very close, and then you have a few states, because they have more population than others, telling the majority of states who will be the next president.

I know the Founding Fathers of this country didn’t intend for a few states to have total control of the elections like they do.

And I understand it’s a preference of the people to live where they want, but why should states such as California, New York or Ohio always be the deciding factor in an election? Last I looked, there are 50 states.

Every election the electoral vote comes under scrutiny, usually by the losing party. Isn’t there a better way to do this? Why not have, say, one vote per state and territory, and let the majority vote determine which candidate receives the vote for that state for the election?

It shouldn’t matter whether you have 100 people in a state or 30 million – equal should be equal. One state, one vote. Then the candidate would have to address every state and its needs, not just the big, fat electoral vote states.

Every election it’s all about the big states. Why should they have more power and say-so than the smaller ones, or less populated ones? Are we not a nation about equality and states’ rights?

We need electoral reform. Every election they talk about it, but it never gets done. Do we not have a representative who has the courage to take this on?

How many times has either candidate come to this state looking for our vote? Probably not as much as Ohio, Pennsylvannia, Virginia or New York. Do we not count, too?

Lynda Andress

Hephzibah

More

Thu, 12/08/2016 - 23:05

And the award begrudgingly goes to …

Thu, 12/08/2016 - 23:03

Rick McKee Editorial Cartoon