From time to time, I see comments that our method of electing the president of the United States is so outdated. The present system is about as out of date as the Bible.
The first thing that backers of a strictly popular vote as the means of declaring the winner of the presidential election need to know and understand is that we are not a true democracy. We are a representative republic, and as such, elect representatives of people to cast electoral votes as the winner of a state.
The Founding Fathers had the wisdom to create an electoral system for determining the president of our republic. They did this because they were aware that using only the total of the national popular vote would allow the large states to run roughshod over the smaller states and determine the winner of every presidential election. Hence, the Electoral College distributes votes according to the candidate who wins the majority of a state's votes for president and sets the number of electoral votes by the number of congressional seats in each state.
This system of awarding the presidential electoral votes has worked well since it was instituted in 1804. Allowing a strict one-man, one-vote system would ensure that those from the smaller states would never have a chance for their votes to make a difference, and therefore, disenfranchise them.
In this conversation, I stand with that old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." All that would result is more election chaos across the country. Only God knows where that will lead.
ROBERT WATTS
Watson