Editor’s note: We asked readers to respond to a recent column calling for an overhaul of the Electoral College. Boy, did they answer the call. Here’s a sample.

One person, one vote

The Electoral College should be scrapped. It is ridiculous that just seven swing states could decide the presidential election this fall. I want my vote to count just as votes in those seven swing states will count. If America is truly one person/one vote, the presidency should be decided by whomever gets the most votes nationally, not just the most votes in each battleground state.

Allie Cantonis, Belleair

Balancing it out

A vote for president of the United States is a vote for the entirety and whole of our country. For example, Alaska and Hawaii, isolated from the mainland, have different issues and needs, and even here in the continental lower 48 states we have major differences. The Electoral College addresses and balances those needs. Although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election by 2.9 million votes, in Los Angeles County alone she got 1.6 million votes. That’s in just one California county! The Electoral College balances out all of the diverse and myriad ways of thinking, cancels out group think and melds it into a very balanced way of governance.

Clyde M. Hennessey, Orlando

It just might happen

This essay makes outstanding points on the absurdity and unfairness of the Electoral College. Reform is desperately needed, and my organization The National Vote strongly advocates for abolishing the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment. It is scandalous that only six or seven swing states representing only one in seven American voters will probably get to decide the 2024 presidential election, an election that will have profound consequences for the United States and the entire world.

Abolish the Electoral College? People say it’ll never happen. Don’t be so sure. We can learn a great lesson from the perseverance shown by women in the 19th and early 20th centuries who wanted the right to vote but were told, “It’ll never happen.” The male-dominated judicial system at the time said no. So, women rolled up their sleeves, organized and created a national movement. Some engaged in civil disobedience, some captivated and charmed, and many used the power of personal persuasion. In 1918 they got President Woodrow Wilson to endorse a constitutional amendment, both chambers of Congress voted for it, and by 1920, three-quarters of the states ratified the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote. Change can and does happen. Only then will the U.S. achieve the lofty ideal of “one person one vote.”

Alan Moghul, Cathedral City, California

If every vote counted

This analysis makes good points regarding the farrago we call the Electoral College. The method used to get elected shapes the campaign, the campaign shapes the candidates, and the candidates shape the presidency. In this country, you have someone who is elected by campaigning only in key districts within a few key states who, as president, will then govern the entire country.

There are three major benefits to a national popular vote: more public participation, more political moderation and more presidential legitimacy. Another significant advantage is that the elimination of the Electoral College would arguably diminish the effect of the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in the Citizens’ United case, which empowered dark money influence on elections. If every vote counted, these large money groups could not concentrate on a few key states, making their efforts to influence elections more costly and much less effective. If every vote counted, candidates could not write off any group of states or group of people completely as they do now.

Spend your days with Hayes

Subscribe to our free Stephinitely newsletter

Columnist Stephanie Hayes will share thoughts, feelings and funny business with you every Monday.

Loading...

You’re all signed up!

Want more of our free, weekly newsletters in your inbox? Let’s get started.

Explore all your options

An Electoral College was not explicitly proposed in our Constitution, and we are a far more complex society than we were in the 18th century. Public opinion polls have shown that 75% of Americans favored abolishing it as early as 1981. Every other elected officeholder is chosen by popular vote, so should the presidency. We have made important progress in the right to vote, and the abolition of the Electoral College will only strengthen that right, and ensure that our votes count.

Brian Walkowiak, St. Petersburg

Count the votes

I can’t believe this piece of antiquity still exists. Count the votes and announce the winner.

Kevin Horan, Hudson

Of the people, by the people

The method of electing the president has been discussed ever since the population began to grow and spread across the continent. In the beginning, due to sparsity of the population and delays in official news of the government to the general populace, the Electoral College seemed to be the answer. But even in the 19th century, it wasn’t perfect, with popular votes not matching electoral votes in several elections. In the 21st century it is an outdated process that should be abandoned in favor of the popular vote. The last election cycle demonstrated how the process of choosing electors from each state can be manipulated to one candidate’s demands. Fortunately those “fake” electors were stopped from submitting contrary votes for the highest office in the land. The definition of popular sovereignty is government based on the consent of the people, and its power is not legitimate if it disregards the will of the people. Government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Pass a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

Carol Hess, Hudson

A republic and let’s keep it

America is a republic, not a democracy, despite what all of the so-called experts, politicians, educators and others say on a daily basis. Don’t think so? Try citing the Pledge of Allegiance. In 2016, President Donald Trump won 30 of the 50 states. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2,864,964 votes. What is often left out is that she got 4,269,978 more votes than Trump in California. So, a single highly populated state could override the wishes of 30 states. This is why we have the Electoral College. (Remember, we are a republic.)

Some people (guess who?) want to enact the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where states would have to give all their electoral votes to whoever won the popular vote. Which two of the four largest states passed this act? New York and California. I wonder why.

Tom Craig, Riverview

The only fair way

As the column says, the ideal is one person/one vote. So why not go for it? That’s the only fair way. Just tweaking the Electoral College will generate another way to manipulate the vote of the people.

Walter Sonnenmoser, Spring Hill

Let’s try this

Wyoming has a population of under 600,000 people while California has a population of approximately 39 million (65 times larger). Wyoming has three electoral votes while California has 54 (18 times more). The founding fathers never anticipated such vast differences in state populations. Based on this discrepancy, it seems a more equitable way to achieve more parity would be to expand progressively the total number of electors based on population, independent of the number of House representatives for a given state. Using this approach, the Electoral College could be modified to where the base number of electors will be based on the number of representatives in the U.S. House and senators allotted to each state (as it is now), with additional electors added for each additional aliquot of population (say each additional 10 million people). This would continue to allow adequate representation to more rural states while narrowing the growing gap in the vote value between rural and more populated areas.

Terry Griffin, Lutz

Don’t change it

I can keep this simple. The political left is always trying to weaken the states rights’ core principles of the Constitution because it restricts the power they seek. Why would we want to give Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and others more influence over Florida? Florida and every states’ electoral votes give them security from these crazies. Only a fool would give them up. We don’t live in a democracy. Democracies devolve into mob rule and chaos. We have a constitutional republic. That ensures individual liberties. The Electoral College is unique and brilliant. Let’s keep it.

John Donovan, St. Petersburg

Proportional representation

As long as we have political parties and gerrymandering, the party in power in each state will continue to benefit from the winner-takes-all system of awarding states delegates. A good start to moving toward a more equitable system would be to award the state delegates prorated to the amount of votes received in that state.

Terry R. Arnold, Treasure Island

No winner-take-all

The Electoral College is constitutional. The way electors are chosen is the problem. I vote to send electors to the Electoral College to represent me. I live in Florida. In 2020 Donald Trump received 51.2% of the vote. Joe Biden received 47.9%. Florida had 29 electors. So, Trump earned 14.8 electors. Round that up to 15. Biden earned 13.8 or 14 electors. I should have had 14 electors go to the Electoral College to represent me. Instead, winner-take-all meant I received zero representation. By what due process was I denied representation? Where is my equal protection to be represented?

Electoral votes need to be prorated in each state, using basic mathematical rounding, instead of winner-take-all. There are three rules used for prorating the votes. No fractional electoral votes. The winner of a state receives the majority of electoral votes from that state. A candidate must receive at least 5% of the national vote to receive any electoral votes. This would not require a change to the Constitution, just a court striking down winner-take-all.

Russ A. Johnson, Hudson

Not every vote counts

Currently only Maine and Nebraska employ a proportional policy regarding electors based on the popular vote in presidential elections in their states. All others employ a winner-take-all policy, again based on the popular vote. The idea that every presidential vote counts is a myth. If the candidate I vote for loses the popular vote in Florida by the slimmest of margins, my vote will not have counted, because the winner will get all Electoral College votes. Either require a proportional policy or go with the national popular vote.

Paul S. Cooper, St. Petersburg

It’s a relic

Having moved here from reliably blue Northeastern states in time for the 2016 election, I was completely unprepared for the onslaught of ads, flyers, calls and general attention that a voter in a (then) swing state is subject to. The contrast was stark. As the author states, the rules by which we select the president have changed multiple times over our history. Notably, people like me have had the privilege of voting for only roughly 100 years.

The current system where a candidate can earn a majority of votes but not attain the office is inherently wrong and disenfranchising. I would wholeheartedly support abolishing the electoral college, challenging as it is to amend the Constitution. Barring that, fundamental change is needed in implementing this relic of an imperfect but aspirational system of choosing our leaders.

Karen Calabria Briskin, South Pasadena

Just do it

The Electoral College? Get rid of it!

Barrett Zebos, Temple Terrace

Let’s game it out

This was a great article, but how about some statistical analysis/what if’s for the various options proposed in the analysis for the elections that have taken place since 2000? Let’s see how the results would have changed.

Gary Bozich, Palm Harbor

A problem with the process

My concern with the Electoral College involves the very process itself. As we all have seen, the aides to the former president tried to use fake electors to sully and paralyze the process of ratifying the election so Congress would have to default into letting each state, the majority being Republican-led, have a vote and thus appoint Donald Trump. Because so few citizens really understand how the Electoral College actually works, and Trump’s people had a practice run in 2020, this is the weak link that I fear will be exploited in the upcoming presidential election. It’s past time to abolish this easily exploitable flaw.

Brian Valsavage, St. Petersburg

Pass this compact

It is time to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This compact is an acceptable way to achieve the goal of the direct popular vote for the election of the president. This proposal would retain the Electoral College and also ensure that the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote wins the election. Even though there are approximately 330 million people in the U.S., 538 electors will decide who will be president. We saw it happen in the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, yet lost the election. Something is wrong with this scenario, and it is time to fix it.

Joan B. Lund, Tampa

The 21st century

The Electoral College is perhaps the greatest threat to democracy of all the problems originating in 18th century documents applied to 21st century life. Eliminate it. Arguments supporting the Electoral College are centuries old — backward and undemocratic — for Republican eyes only.

David Nathanson, Tampa

Let voters decide

It is long past time to correct the process to elect our country’s president. Do away with the Electoral College completely and let the voters decide via the popular vote.

Robert Pressrich, St. Petersburg