Letter: A better way to do the Electoral College

Reading with interest the letters about Electoral College vs. popular vote and republic vs. democracy, I would suggest a simple modification to the Electoral College that would protect the republic while allowing everyone’s vote in each state to make a difference in a presidential election.

The solution would be to apportion the Electoral College votes from each state based on the popular vote distribution in that state.

For example: in South Carolina, Donald Trump received 55 percent of the popular vote and Hillary Clinton received 41 percent, with all others receiving 4 percent. South Carolina has nine electoral votes. When you apply the percentages to the nine electoral votes, Trump would receive five electoral votes and Clinton would receive four.

In this manner of distribution, regardless of the typical political leaning of the majority of voters in a given state, the minority party voters would still be represented in the Electoral College tally and have an incentive to cast their ballots, which is not the case in many states currently.

How would the recent election have played out using this approach? Based on the final results posted by The New York Times and applying the suggested approach to the Electoral College vote state by state, Trump would have received 268 Electoral College votes and Clinton would have received 270.

This approach would have required both major-party candidates to take their campaigns to the whole country and not to just a few marginal states, and all who voted would feel their vote made a difference.

This story was originally published January 4, 2017 at 6:19 PM with the headline "Letter: A better way to do the Electoral College."