In defense of the Electoral College
A rebuttal to Arthur Kaminsky's "Maybe now is the time to end the Electoral College" (Letters, Sept. 24, 2020):
Our Founding Fathers established the Electoral College so that heavily-populated states would not tyrannize those more lightly populated, as would happen when adopting a national popular vote plan.
According to WorldPopulationReview.com, California's current population is 39,747,267. Idaho has 1,826,160 residents, Montana 1,086,760, Wyoming 567,025, North Dakota 761,723, and South Dakota 903,027. The combined population of these latter five states is 5,144,695.
Setting aside the voting age requirement and using a 100 percent voter turnout, if Candidate A received 75 percent of the vote from Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas, and Candidate B received 25 percent, A would have a 2,572,347 vote margin of victory. But in California, Candidate B would need to receive only 53.5 percent of the vote to beat Candidate A by nearly 210,000 votes, wiping out A's 75 to 25 percent margin of victory in the five other states.
Thankfully for us in Idaho, as well as other less-populated states, our Founding Fathers anticipated such a scenario. They wisely established the Electoral College so that the combined number of U.S. senators (2) and representatives of each state (varying according to population) would be calculated in each state's electoral vote total.
We must continue to stand firm in support of the Electoral College. Otherwise, California would easily rule over us.