All readers, of all ages, should share their opinions.

You give us hope for the future

CAREFUL readers of this paper’s opinion section will note that early last week, our editors selected a letter to the editor from somebody, well, not exactly in sync with the demographics of most newspaper readers. Which warms our inky hearts no end.

It was such a gratifying dispatch, such a rewarding experience, that we would like to re-publish the letter here for readers who missed it:

Declutter the process

I am 11 years old and in sixth grade at Pulaski Heights Middle School in Little Rock.

I think the Electoral College devalues the individual vote. Your vote doesn’t mean anything unless the rest of the state also votes for the same candidate.

Removing the Electoral College would give the popular vote a point. It would elect the candidate with the most votes rather than electoral votes. The Electoral College was invented to give slave-holding states more power. Now that slavery is outlawed, why should we have laws meant to empower slave-holders? To me it is as bad as when slaves were only counted as three-fifths of a person.

In conclusion, I don’t think we really need it. I think getting rid of it would declutter the process.

NATHANIEL DRANOFF Little Rock

DEAR MISTER Dranoff, your letter was probably seconded by hundreds of other readers, maybe more. It was wholly a pleasure to know that there are young people who still consider the newspaper a preferred medium. Take that, Facebook!

You might make a fine editorial writer one day. Or another kind of opinionator. For all the talk of the Death of Newspapers, which has been around since radio’s early days, we think that thoughtful, researched, well-intended opinions will still be valuable in the coming decades. Especially if today’s young people demand it when they’re older.

As far as the point of your letter, may we disagree? As friends? There were many moving parts when the United States Constitution was put together by the Founders, and slavery was certainly one of those parts. (Slavery is the original sin of the country and its Constitution.)

It can be argued that the Electoral College was not invented to give slave-holding states more power. Although, as you said, counting slaves as three-fifths a person (without bothering to give slaves three-fifths the vote) certainly did give those Southern states more congressional power.

The Electoral College was put in place to give smaller states a voice in who becomes president. Smaller states like Rhode Island and Delaware and . . . now that you mention it . . . Arkansas.

A friend once said that the United States as a country shouldn’t be able to work as a nation, any more than a bumblebee should be able to fly. But it just does. And our presidential elections every four years seem an 18th-century invention that shouldn’t work. But it just does.

First, the Electoral College restricts recounts to particular states. Such as Florida in 2000. Or to Georgia and Pennsylvania in 2020. Can you imagine a country-wide recount after close elections? Such recounts might have plunged the country into crisis in 1877. And 1960. And 2000. And 2016. Some of us would prefer the ordeal of “hanging chads” in only Florida to 49 more recounts and re-recounts and re-re-recounts. Every presidential election might go on as long as the last one. Or longer.

And why blame the Electoral College when a state can’t count its votes? Place the blame where it belongs.

For all the criticism, the Electoral College is a product of tradition. And constitutional changes. And adjustments. A straight popular vote for president is a nice idea, but only an idea. It’s never been tested in reality in this two-party system of a country.

And what might happen to the two-party system if the Electoral College wasn’t in place to support it? What about a system in which many smaller political parties can run candidates, split the vote, then—if the Constitution is amended to allow for runoffs instead of sending the election to the House— what kind of corrupt bargains would be made to get the two parties in a face-toface showdown?

If that would even happen. Because what happens when a third party gathers a plurality, like, say, 25 percent in the first round of elections? Then we’ll put together a coalition, like in parliamentary systems? In which governments fall at the drop of a Cabinet member? That’s not un-American, it’s not anti-American, it’s French. (Twain, M.)

And those are just the problems we can think of. Surely there are many more in an abstract system that hasn’t been tested yet.

For all its creaking and moaning every four years, this antique system is proven to work. And we’d like to keep it working.

But thank you, young Mister Dranoff, for giving us another opportunity to explain our position on this topic—or any topic. We love giving our opinions to people who ask for them. Or even when they don’t.

Please keep your correspondence coming, young friend. You do your country good. Not to mention our hopes for the future.