Any time the popular vote and the electoral vote disagree there is the cry to get rid of the Electoral College system.
One man, one vote. It sounds great, but with a large, diverse electorate it simply is not practical.
Keep in mind that if the presidency were determined by direct popular vote, Hillary would not have won on November 8. She did not receive a majority of the vote, but only a plurality, i.e. less than half.
Any modern country that utilizes popular vote requires a runoff vote between the top two candidates, or selection by an elected group similar to our system. During the last century about one half of the elections were won by a candidate that did not have a majority vote, including Bill Clinton twice and the Al Gore plurality of 2000. So half of the elections would have required a runoff, or selection by a committee. The latter is what we have, and the former is fraught with all kinds of problems.
The major problem involves the dealing for power between the losers and the two winners, which greatly subverts the will of the people.
Many historians believe that the runoff election of 1932 in Germany led to Hitler’s rise to power, and in fact, Germany has not used direct popular vote since then.
Our forefathers were a very wise group. They came up with the electoral system in the original Constitution, and revised it with the 12th amendment, after experiencing the problems of the first elections. I think if we take our two centuries of elections, analyze a pro forma situation with direct vote, we will find that our system is still the best.
Defending the electoral system, Alexander Hamilton said; “It is not perfect, just excellent.”
So don’t throw away any bath water without a thorough screening.
Dick Riethmiller
Pagosa Springs