Time for popular vote for president
The May 20 Free Press editorial argues the country should keep what its Founding Fathers adopted, with the Electoral College needed to avoid — as one put it — the "tyranny of the majority," and to prevent large states from dominating the election process.
Note that every state elects its governor by popular vote. This system isn't tyranny.
If the intent of the Electoral College is to give disproportionate weight to voters in small states, it hasn't been effective. In the past five elections, the popular vote has been overridden by the Electoral College twice. In 2000, the election was determined by fewer than 1,000 votes in Florida.
In 2016, the election was determined by narrow margins in three states, two in the top 10 states in population.
The real reason Republicans are opposed to abolishing the Electoral College is they have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections.
The framers of the Constitution didn't provide for direct election of either senators or president. About a 100 years ago, the 17th Amendment was passed to provide for the direct election of senators. It is time to do the same for president.
Greg Gloss, Cleveland, Tenn.
Betting on summit, and an agreement
Pelosi/Democrats "mock Trump for pulling out of summit." What happened to: "United we stand, divided we fall?"
I may be wrong because we're dealing with a childlike dictator, but how many times have you used that negotiation tactic? Then Pompeo is being drilled by a congresswoman about why Trump backed out, after Kim has been threatening to back out and promising nuclear war. And Trump's last speech wasn't his best. I watched all this after falling asleep, then waking up to the news. I felt like I was almost waking up to a comedy skit.
I'll bet the summit happens. No bets on the agreement, but I'll give it a 51-49 shot we get one.
What are the Trump haters and Democrats gonna do when he gets the Nobel Peace Prize? He deserves it more than the last clown.
Bruce Fleury, Hixson