How to best represent state in presidential election

Re: “Bill changing how president is elected advances,” Feb. 12 news story

I support the bill in the Colorado legislature to elect our president by national popular vote, for reasons not being discussed.

The Electoral College is broken. The number of electors is an obsolete number. It was last revised in 1911; the last time Congress set the number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives (at 435), when the country had about 94 million people. Today, we have about 328 million. In order to make the Electoral College fair and relevant now, we would need to add more than 100 seats in the House, and thus more than 100 more electoral votes. Adding the needed seats in Congress can be done by members of the U.S. House without a constitutional amendment or constitutional convention. People should not be fooled by protectors of this rigged system who may tell you otherwise.

Colorado has 10 times as many people as Wyoming, but Colorado has only seven people in the House; a number kept artificially low by the 435 seats allotted. Dozens of states are shortchanged this way. Who in Congress will be bold enough to stand-up and change ten decades of inaction? The number of seats in Congress should be revised every ten years with the census. Since that isn’t happening, the national popular vote measure must pass.

If the number of Congressional seats were increased and distributed equitably among the American populace, the action to override our Electoral College would not be necessary. Pete Simon, Arvada

Rep. Jedi Arendt claims in your article that this bill will “enfranchise every single American,” but supporters don’t care if it would disenfranchise every states majority if the popular vote goes the other way. It makes sense for each state to have a more direct say in the vote outcome given the great diversity amongst our 50 states as the founders clearly recognized. Regardless of political leanings, I hope this bill never gets enacted. RJ Stevenson, Littleton