Editor,

The Electoral College is outdated in the same way that we have recognized other parts of the United States Constitution to be outdated. The Founding Fathers knew that parts of the Constitution would change with the times, which is why they created it to be changed, albeit making it difficult to do so.

I find it amazing that we the people do not vote for president. Electors do. And I find it even more amazing that we don’t vote for the electors.

We live in a republic — a representative democracy — yet the most important position in the land is truly not representative of the people. No other elected official is elected this way.

Instead of being one person, one vote, what the electoral process does is discriminate against people who more likely live in close proximity to each other.

What can you say to justify the fact that a rural farmer’s vote from California means less than a rural farmer’s vote from Wyoming?

Sure, under a popular vote system, a person can be elected with the votes of only a handful of states, but to have states like California, Texas, New York or Florida vote 100 percent toward one candidate is next to impossible.

There’s a more extreme, but more likely, example in the electoral system: a person can be elected with only about 140,000 votes — using 2012 turnout.

How? A candidate wins Wyoming with just over half the vote.

The other two major party candidates don’t get to 270. In this scenario, the House of Representatives must choose between the top three candidates, and they choose the third candidate.

“But, without the electoral system, Wyoming would be ignored.” Unfortunately, it already is.

Ninety four percent of the 2016 campaign events occurred in only 12 states. Did Trump even visit Wyoming? Did Clinton sit down to hear the concerns of Montana voters?

The Electoral College makes no common sense, serves no purpose, and does not reflect government by the governed. Go to www.nationalpopularvote.com for more info.

Pam Dowd

Oak Harbor