Mark Schwiebert’s arguments against the Electoral College (Nov. 12 column) would weigh more if the voting map weren’t so fresh. A sea of red, covering the majority of the U.S., with only the occasional blue dots representing big cities, argues against his contention it is undemocratic.
We live in a state that is run by Chicago, and you can see why our forefathers saw the Electoral College as a good idea. One of the most dysfunctional states in the union, Illinois is a strong argument against allowing big cities to rule. The corruption, lack of fiscal discipline and a constant demand for more tax money is crushing the middle class.
A quick look at other big cities shows more of the same. Why would we want those cities in control of the whole nation? The argument that no one paid attention to the small states is untrue. Both parties had many people striving to get their candidate elected. The parties would be crazy not to work hard to influence the people to vote for their guy.
The candidates themselves have limited time and energy, so they are concentrating on the biggest states. The idea for a few educated men to choose the president is prevented by state laws forbidding the electors from voting their own mind. Schwiebert's idea of forcing a state to vote the national majority goes against the will of the people within that state, and it is an undemocratic idea.