Given all the focus on essentially one state for the presidential election, isn't it time to really look at whether the Electoral College, as presently constructed, is still the fairest way of electing a president?
No matter which party finishes second, I feel like we all lose when such a large portion of the electorate is ignored during an election.
The system needs a modification, because just going with the overall popular vote will only lead to politicians ignoring less populated states completely; basically, the opposite of what happens now, aside from Florida.
I say split the Electoral College votes from each state based on the percentage a candidate gets of the popular vote. So, here in New York, let's say President Barack Obama gets 75 percent of the popular vote, he would then get 75 percent of the 31 Electoral College votes while Mitt Romney would get the other 25 percent. Third-party candidates would get a percentage, too.
This system allows every state to remain in play until Election Day, and it allows voters in the minority party in every state to still have a chance to affect the outcome of the election. In other words, every vote would truly count.
I cannot be the only one who is more than a little uneasy with the notion of one or two states picking our president every four years.
STEPHEN A. SMITH
East Greenbush