Editor,

In Saturday’s edition of the Whidbey News-Times, guest columnist Steve Erickson states his belief that the public would be better served by abolishing the Electoral College in presidential elections.

This letter is to refute his position.

Mr. Erickson states that provision for the Electoral College was placed into the Constitution, “Why, from that other peculiar institution, slavery, these United States second original sin.”

Erickson goes on to say that, “when the Constitution was negotiated, the slave-owning aristocrats that controlled the southern states were concerned that the northern states would dominate the country and abolish their right to own other humans.”

“The Federalist No. 68,” written in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton, makes no mention of slavery, either directly or by implication, in stating the various reasons for creating the Electoral College.

Finally, Mr. Erickson states that “the Electoral College system carried over the imbalance created by granting each state two senators, regardless of actual population.”

These arguments are refuted in “Federalist No. 62,” written by James Madison. In justification of two senators per state regardless of population, Madison states that, “If indeed it be right that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and among independent and sovereign states bound together by a simple league, the parties however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils.” Further that “the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.”

Hence, the House of Representatives was created on the basis of population, and the Senate on the basis of equal representation, one to check the other. One can also conclude that the Electoral College is founded on these same principles.

There is another very practical reason for the Electoral College which, while not stated by the writers of the Federalist papers, has a parallel in their thinking.

That is to ensure that no state or region shall have dominance over other states or regions. To prove the point, in a review of the recent presidential election voting statistics, you will find that the heavily populated states of California, New York, and Massachusetts provided the number of votes that accounted for Hillary Clinton’s “majority.”

California provided nearly all of these votes by itself.

One only need to look at our state to see a parallel. There are 39 counties in Washington, 33 or 34 of which habitually vote for conservative candidates. Yet, in statewide and national elections, the heavily populated counties of King, Pierce and Snohomish typically vote for liberal candidates that dominate the results.

Without the Electoral College, presidential elections would likely be determined by a very few heavily populated states for the same reasons that Washington elections are decided by a very few counties.

The writers of our Constitution were thoughtful men who recognized the need for checks and balances in our government. However deadlocked our government may be at times, due to political partisanship, it is better to endure the stagnation for a while, than to be dominated forever, by a few.

Harry S. Hansen

Coupeville