Adopting the Electoral College model for State Senate races is not a solution

It was sad to see Jack C. Collins’ letter last week touting the adoption of the Electoral College model for State Senate races rather than the majority of votes cast because his candidate lost the election because her opponent, Tim Mitts, received more votes.

That bears repeating. Tim Mitts won because he received more votes.

In fact, if the system Mr. Collins proposed was adopted, a candidate could conceivably win an staggering majority of the votes cast (perhaps 70% or more based on close totals in 20 towns and an overwhelming number in one heavily populated town) and still lose the election.

To me that’s both absurd, and a recipe for exacerbating the growing electoral friction we’re experiencing.

The Electoral College was a compromise between elites that distrusted the “rabble” to make a wise decision, and those who trusted the people to do so. Other factors, such as slavery, played roles in the compromise as well.

It’s difficult to include all the important points of this issue into a short letter, but not difficult to see Mr. Collins’ “solution” is not one.

Sgt. Raymond Hughes, U.S.M.C.

Monroe