You know, accountants, mathematicians, anyone adding a list of numbers, usually, if rounding, do it on the very last sum; otherwise rounding can lead to large differences — in regard to the “Electoral College,” think of the difficulty to transmit messages in the late 1700s.
Possibly, or probably, the framers of the national’s laws decided that one person, representing many voters could travel to a meeting place, then cast a single vote. From time to time, electoral voters would be added to reflect an increasing population.
I think this method was chosen to prevent forgery, other fraud and mistakes that might more easily happen with a paper document counting, reporting the exact “popular vote” in any given locale — the idea being that the elector would carry predetermined identification and have a higher sense of mission as well — the many symbolized by one.
Today, with telephones, rapid electronics, very fast ballot tabulation and recording, the electoral college is outdated — the only reason for keeping it is that candidates spend more time seeking votes in lower population areas.
Elimination of the electoral college could have a requirement, instead, that a candidate for national office speak personally in every state a minimum of hours, before a minimum number of people, or both.
Mr. Gore in 2000 received a higher popular vote than his opponent, Mr. Bush; and now Hillary Clinton has in 2016 been given more than her opponent, Mr. Trump, but both lost the elections!
We pride ourselves on “one man, one vote,” an old saying.
Now let us make that indicate the fact! Let’s ask our U.S. Congress to end the Electoral College; sooner or later it will “bite” a Republican, too!
Thomas Henry Taylor
Greenfield