To the editor:

The Electoral College system of electing the president of the United States is a very well thought out and fair system. Even though our federal government is referred to as a democracy, it is actually a constitutional republic. Therefore, senators and representatives represent the citizens in Congress.

The president is the president of the states, emphasis on “states.” The “states” elect the president.

So each “state” is assigned two electoral votes since each “state” is represented by two senators.

This gives each “state” a voice in the election process. Then to balance for the number of citizens of each “state,” additional electoral votes are assigned based upon the number of United States congressional districts in that state. This gives citizens of all states a voice and not just the heavily populated states.

This is fair since the more heavily populated states do have more electoral votes than less populated states, but the less populated states still have a voice. Keep in mind “states” elect the president.

Without this system, candidates would campaign to gain the votes of only people in highly populated cities, ignoring everyone else.

The needs and wants of people in rural areas and less populated areas would not be heard by candidates.

Taking it to an extreme, if the majority of the population is in California, then California would determine who is president. How fair would that be to the citizens of the other 49 states?

John Fedchak
Oakville