- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Uncle Albert made me chuckle. Indeed, imagine how horrible it would be if "N.Y., Boston, D.C., Chicago, L.A., S.F." -- i.e., the places where many Americans actually live -- were allowed to play a fair and equal role in electing U.S. presidents.
Albert obviously prefers the present system, in which a Republican vote in Wyoming carries four times the electoral weight of a Democratic vote in California; campaigns are confined to a handful of "contested" states;
No, a vote in Wyoming counts as much as a vote in NY--one man, one vote. You show concern that candidates campaign heavily in only certain states but miss the point if, as I pointed out, we went to the popular vote the candidates would campaign in only a handful of cities, bypassing entire regions of the country.
Is it perfect? No, nothing is, but the Electoral College is a more fair way of representing the entire country than the popular vote.
