College of Hard Knocks: Popular Vote Has Its Limits
Sen. Barbara Boxer and others suggesting that the Electoral College be abolished should have the self-awareness to ask themselves, what if Donald Trump had taken the popular vote and lost the electoral vote (“DT boosts Electoral nix,” Nov. 15)?
There can be no doubt that the Electoral College would now be a paragon of constitutional righteousness in comparison to the popular vote as expressed by the hoi polloi. Arthur Copeland Stamford, Conn.
Please remember that only two states — California and New York — combined gave Hillary Clinton about 5 million more votes than Trump — far more than her expected 1 million-plusv-ote margin nationally. Arthur Messenger Scarsdale
The Electoral College was created to keep high-population states from getting their way all the time, which would result in other states being ignored by candidates.
This is a republic, and the federal government is supposed to have limited and specific powers, as noted in the Constitution.
Considering Democrats win the majority of votes in New York, California and a few other large states, why would any candidate give a damn about what the voters in the “fly-over” states between the coasts want if there wasn’t an Electoral College? Steve Becker East Meadow
Hillary Clinton supporters shout that because she won the popular vote for president, that somehow negates the beatdown she took in the Electoral College.
Well, of course she won the popular vote — do you think any of the countless illegal-immigrant votes in New York, Oregon or California were for Trump?
Sorry, Dems, but cheaters never prosper. Pete McArdle Yorktown Heights
The professional finger-pointers are again embarrassing themselves.
Instead of blaming everyone else for Hillary’s loss, they should be asking themselves how Trump won.
They’re too immature to give him credit for winning, especially since no other candidate had to put up with such a storm of hate and criticism. Brian Keane Patchogue