A recent letter “Electoral College makes sense” once again shows a misunderstanding of how the Electoral College was intended to work (Our Readers’ Views, Nov. 14). The writer asserts that just because people live in larger cities or states, their opinion should count less than those in rural or less-populous areas. No, the Founding Fathers did not intend for tyranny of the minority, which is what we have now.
The Electoral College was designed when the number of seats in the House of Representatives was determined by actual population. A state with twice as much population than another would have twice as many representatives. This is fair, and originally the House expanded as population did. However, the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 fixed the number at 435 members. Since that number doesn’t change, smaller states’ votes are worth more than larger states’ votes. Wyoming gets one House vote for its under-600,000 population, while California, with about 67 times as many people, has only 53. This unfairly dilutes the value of the votes in more populated areas.
If we expanded the House size as the population grew, as the Founding Fathers intended, the Electoral College would be fair. As it is now, less-populated areas have an unintended advantage.
