Letters to the Editor

One person, one vote?

Why are we still using the antiquated Electoral College? Someone recently explained that it was originally intended to “guarantee a voice to minorities.”

Yes, everyone should have a voice, but I always thought that, in a democracy, “majority rules.” With this year’s national election the Electoral College system has empowered an administration of “minority rules.”

On Election Day, Americans cast almost 3 million more popular votes for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump. In local and state elections, more votes would mean a win. Pennsylvania was narrowly divided, but because of the “winner-take-all” approach to casting the electoral votes on the U.S. presidential level, Pennsylvania cast all of its 20 votes for Trump.

This means that if enough people in your home state disagree with your choice, your vote does not count! That’s right. Your vote was “counted,” but if your side turns out to be the minority in your state on a presidential election, it is not recognized — you wasted your time.

All elections are important, but it is only in local and state races where you can be sure your vote counts. People who vote only in “big” national elections can be truly disenfranchised.

Jean Aron, Boalsburg

  Comments