An Amer­i­can Way to Elect a Pres­i­dent

The Washington Post Sunday - - Letters To The Editor -

David S. Broder is right [“A Du­bi­ous Elec­toral Idea,” op-ed, April 5]: There are se­ri­ous ques­tions to con­sider be­fore chang­ing the 18th-cen­tury elec­toral col­lege sys­tem used to elect our pres­i­dent. But th­ese con­cerns are far out­weighed by the ben­e­fits of the Na­tional Pop­u­lar Vote Plan, which would guar­an­tee that the can­di­date who gets the most votes wins, that each vote counts the same and that each vote is counted for the can­di­date for whom it is cast. None of this is true un­der the cur­rent sys­tem.

To­day, two-thirds of the states are ig­nored by the pres­i­den­tial cam­paigns of both par­ties be­cause those states are con­sid­ered solidly blue or red. Na­tional Pop­u­lar Vote would en­sure that vot­ers in all 50 states are seen as im­por­tant.

The pop­u­lar vote is not for­eign to Amer­i­cans — it’s the way we choose our county sher­iffs, state leg­is­la­tors, gov­er­nors, mem­bers of Congress and all other elected of­fi­cials. Be­cause Congress has re­fused to act, it is time to urge our state leg­is­la­tors to adopt a plan that en­sures the ba­sic prin­ci­ples of democ­racy con­tained in Na­tional Pop­u­lar Vote. BIRCH BAYH Chevy Chase The writer, a Demo­crat, rep­re­sented In­di­ana in the U.S. Se­nate from 1963 to 1981.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.