In an editorial last week, Monday, you stated, “The Electoral College is a strange and outdated system.”

You can’t get away with that rather off-handed and unsubstantiated remark, because of the seriousness of the subject and the power you wield to sway public opinion. Are you suggesting that we go with the popular vote or something more in line with what our forefathers had in mind — an “updated Electoral College?”

I am sure you read the column in your same edition on the Electoral College, titled “It Isn’t Broken; Let’s Don’t Fix It.” Its main point was that runoff elections might make for back-room political deal-making. The lesser point was that the popular vote could lead to a tyranny of the majority.

Long ago, when our country was founded, this second thought was silenced by guaranteeing to the smaller sovereign states that they would get electoral votes not only equal to their population but to their Senate representatives.

Smaller states with less territory and less chance for population growth joined our union, the United States, knowing that they had some power in the Senate for legislation and some power in the Electoral College for the election of the president.

To argue against an Electoral College system goes hand in hand with an argument against our two legislative houses. If you want simple majority rule, the Senate is an anachronism.

Over time, the power of smaller states has been diminished by population growth, so much so that Electoral College votes now almost reflect the popular vote. This will only continue.

To restore some state power and counter this trend, we need to give less emphasis to popular vote and more emphasis to state-by-state vote. We are, after all, a union of sovereign states.

James Stancil

Pinehurst