I am concerned about David McGrath’s opinion regarding “ditching” the Electoral College as “archaic.”

Our great country is comprised of 50 states with varying populations and needs. If you look at a population map, you will see a primary massing in metropolitan areas, particularly on the northeast and west coasts. In the middle of these areas are masses of people with differing needs and concerns, who would not have their voices heard nor their needs addressed.

Why is this important? What’s good for cities doesn’t work in rural areas and vice versa. For example, policies limiting individual autos in favor of mass transit makes sense for urban areas to cut pollution, but not for my sister who has to drive an hour for hospital care because Medicare reimbursement is too low for the rural hospitals to remain in business. Not to mention the problem of charging an electric vehicle so she can get home. She also has limited access to high speed internet for telemedicine.

Government close to the people is more apt to meet the needs of constituents. When the federal government makes policy it affects every state. More rural states would have no voice if the popular vote were the only way to elect a president. That’s why Congress is made up of representatives by population (the House) and a body comprised of two from each state despite population (the Senate).

The Electoral College needs to remain so that this same balance can be maintained in electing the president.

Sue Collins, Harmony