On direct democracy

The direct democracy that Karl Kimball scorns is ancient, but works best in smaller communities such as yearly assemblies of the tribe in ancient times or New England town meetings. Even ancient Athens had its Council of 500 and some scholars argue that Athens evolved into a representative system.

American founders drew on Athens and the Roman republic as models of government. Yet both depended greatly on slave labor, and women were disenfranchised. Only about 10 percent of the people of ancient Athens were male citizens entitled to vote.

The same is true of our country’s early days. Only free white males could vote, leaving out women, slaves, indentured servants, and other men without property. It is estimated that only 6 percent of the population could vote in 1790.

Our founding fathers were indeed brilliant, but they were also men of their time and social class. Fortunately they were wise enough to set up an amendment process by which the various disenfranchised finally won the vote. Following precedent, we could and should change or eliminate the electoral college in order to make our system more representative, not less.

Kimball, personalizing states, sees large states overpowering small ones. But with today’s instant communications, when four out of 10 Americans have lived in two or more states, state boundaries have less meaning. Do we really need another layer of patriotic fervor?

Incidentally, direct democracy co-exists with our representative system in the form of initiative, referendum, and recall. (Arkansas has the first two on the state level.) CORALIE KOONCE

Springdale