It’s almost amusing to hear the rationales given for the existence of the Electoral College [“Electoral College must go?” Letters, Nov. 21].
James Madison may have justified the system as a way to protect the country from demagogues, but his real concern was to protect slavery, according to constitutional scholar Paul Finkelman.
The simple fact was that the Northern states, with their larger, free voting populations, would always outvote slave states.
Today, the Electoral College system prevents progressive majorities from outvoting conservative minorities. And if the intent was to protect the country from demagogues, it is failing miserably this year.
Richard G. Shelp Jr., Bridgehampton
Two states, Maine and Nebraska, have changed the way they count their electoral votes. These states are not winner-take-all. They give two electoral votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the winner in every congressional district. There are two districts in Maine and three in Nebraska.
To me, that seems fairer. Also, it might encourage people to vote if they knew that their district could go to either candidate.
Bob Andreocci, Huntington