In reference to your recent editorial about the benefits of the Electoral College, I must strongly disagree.

My vote for president hasn’t counted in this state for many years, and this does make one feel disenfranchised. I am sure there are Republican voters in Los Angeles who likewise feel disenfranchised in regard to each presidential election.

The argument that you make is one I’ve heard for years, but it does not resonate with me. You state that the Electoral College protects the input of smaller states and smaller communities.

My question is, are we electing the president of the states or are we electing the president of all of the people?

It is a national office, it is not an office representing states or communities or corporations or anything other than each and every living, breathing citizen.

As for the assumption that candidates would spend much more time in large cities and much less time elsewhere if election were by popular vote, it appears to me that they presently ignore states unless they are swing states as it is now. With the popular vote, there would be more time spent in more states and areas, not less.

I have yet to hear a valid argument in favor of the Electoral College and don’t believe that the argument made in your editorial was valid, either.

The president should be elected by popular vote of the citizens, not by the Electoral College.

Rick Stringer

McDonough Road

Folly Beach

In the last week I have taken particular notice of two news articles concerning the Electoral College, which essentially protest the unfairness of this election process. I am surprised at how ignorant the experts quoted in this paper really are.

In the article “Sure your vote counts, but …” Paul Finkelman, an Albany Law School professor, is quoted as saying: “It’s a terrible system; it’s the most undemocratic way of electing a chief executive in the world.” This statement only shows that Mr. Finkelman and the editor of this paper do not understand our proven system of government.

First of all, the United States of America has never been a democracy; our nation is a federal republic and by definition almost totally a representative system.

The founders of our nation intentionally designed this system so that the dangers of democracy that had been observed throughout history could be avoided.

The Electoral College was designed as one of the many checks written into our Constitution to guard against a totalitarian government as well as guarding against a descent into anarchy.

This system was set up to provide a buffer between the president and the people.

The office of president was never intended to be answerable directly to the citizens. He is not, and never should be, considered to be a representative of the people.

The average American has representation through their congressmen, but to subject the president to the public opinion of the people greatly impedes his ability to adequately carry out his job as chief executive.

The Electoral College is intended to take that responsibility away from the people somewhat and puts the responsibility on the individual states so that the president then becomes more responsible to the states for his actions.

The Electoral College is neither ignorant nor is it disorganized, but rather it is a very educated, intelligent process that was intended to allow our executive office to work much more smoothly.

It is my opinion that The Post and Courier should investigate the facts and history behind the functions of our government before printing statements that are historically and factually inaccurate.

James Krontz

Student Body President

Charleston Southern University

Tobacco Road

St. Stephen