Is direct election the best way?

Re “Will bias beat reason at the polls?” Opinion, April 3

In crafting the Constitution, our founders decided that voter input in selecting a president would be indirect; an electoral college would do it. The reason was that voters might be ill-equipped to select a president but could select someone well known locally to act for them.

Op-Ed article writer Robert M. Sapolsky, straying from his neuroscience expertise, argues that picking a competent person to be president may be unreliable, as it could result in competent implementation of disliked policies. However, the nation is not a direct democracy; we elect representatives to make policy, hopefully after competent study.

Sapolsky also hints that voters could rely solely on candidate position papers. But voters know that heavy reliance on statements made during a campaign is foolhardy.

Presently, presidential candidates run under their own names and appeal directly to voters, a far cry from the original design. As a Donald Trump nomination nears, we may pine for something closer to the original.

John C. Nangle

Palm Springs

In his superb overview of the psychology underlying voters’ choices, Sapolsky avers that “subterranean, unconscious forces are constantly percolating up to influence our decision-making.”

That explains how a candidate inclined to reality-show titillation can prevail over one with a well-reasoned platform. It moreover underscores the importance of nullifying Citizens United, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision giving wealthy individuals and corporations near limitless latitude to buy elections.

It’s bad enough that more money can buy more pervasive advertising. But the flushest campaigns can employ advertisers most adept at exploiting voters’ gullibility.

Sapolsky posits that the more we’re aware of such dark forces, the more we can resist them. But so long as Citizens United remains the law, many voters will be kept unaware and unable to resist.

Christine Hagel

Santa Maria