Letter: Eliminate ‘winner-take-all’

In the aftermath of a contentious election, there has been a lot of discussion regarding the Electoral College and its usage to determine the president. Many voices want to eliminate the system entirely, but may I offer a variation that would preserve the system, yet realistically be more representative?

The most unfair part of the current system is the “winner-take-all” aspect, whereas the votes of the state’s minority cease to have any meaning whatsoever. Let’s say that the popular vote in South Carolina was 60 percent Republican and 40 percent Democratic. The fair way to have the electors truly represent the population of voters would be, out of 50 delegates, 30 would pledge Republican and 20 would pledge Democratic. Ah, but not so. The majority will get all 50 votes, making the minority voters wonder if there’s any point in even bothering going to the polling place.

We don’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but there are certainly some tweaks that would make the system far more equitable. The “winner-take-all” is the closest thing we have to a rigged election.

This story was originally published December 7, 2016 at 7:46 PM with the headline "Letter: Eliminate ‘winner-take-all’."