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
- Seattle once again nation’s fastest-growing big city; population exceeds 700,000 | FYI Guy
- 2 Bellevue High students investigated in alleged rape of 14-year-old girl at Yarrow Point party
- Amazon opens Seattle grocery pickup sites to Prime members
- Trump’s budget proposal zeros out $1.1 billion for Lynnwood light-rail line
- What drivers can and cannot do under Washington state's new distracted-driving law
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