Editor, The Times
Our recent presidential election marks the fifth time that a president has been elected by winning the required 270 electoral votes, while at the same time losing the popular vote.
In this recent election the successful Republican candidate, Donald Trump, won the minimum required 270 electoral votes, but lost the popular vote by some two million or more votes. How can this broken system be changed without going through the difficult and lengthy process of a constitutional amendment?
If the Electoral College were retained, but the “winner take all” present practice for allocating delegate votes were eliminated, then a more representative election may still be possible by only congressional or state legislative action.
Most Read Stories
- The results are in: Here's where the new Dick's Drive-In will be
- Milo Yiannopoulos at UW: A speech, a shooting and $75,000 in police overtime
- Best way to slow aging? Exercise, but not just any kind
- Elon Musk’s SpaceX on brink of `Wright Brothers moment’ with reused rocket
- Alex Tizon, former Seattle Times reporter who won Pulitzer Prize, dies at 57
If every state were required to select an alternative method such as prorating the popular vote based on the relative percentages each candidate received, then the winner-take-all policy could be completely eliminated and appropriately replaced.
Similar proposals have been bandied about for years, but now is a time as never before where this change is needed.
Norman A. Dixon, Lacey