I'd like to respond to a couple of letters on the National Popular Vote movement, mootly, since it's been enacted in New York. Mr. Finchbaugh's argument against it is because we're a "republic, not a democracy." If that justifies putting the candidate into office who has fewer votes, it sounds like a banana republic. He fears the tyranny of the majority, but not that of the minority.
Just to cite a comparison between two states. New York has a population of 19,796,000 with 29 electoral votes. Wyoming has a population of 586,100 with 3 electoral votes. If you do the math on that, you'll find the vote of a Wyomingite is worth three and a half times what yours is as a New Yorker. I want my vote to count the same as any other American.
Mr. Silvestri points out that "Lincoln won the election via the Electoral College even though he had only 40 percent of the popular vote." Maybe I'm missing the point, but Lincoln's closest competitor had only 29%. The other two split the remaining 31%. So, Abe won the popular vote and the electoral. Unlike George W. Bush and Donald Trump, I might add.
He says that, without the College, regions of the country would be ignored. In the latest campaign only 12 states received any attention from candidates. The 50 largest cities only contain 15% of our citizenry. Appealing to them alone wouldn't win it. And contrary to Mr. Flinchbaugh's assertion of the NPV being limited to blue states: Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia and Missouri have passed it in their Houses; North Carolina and Oklahoma in their Senates. Maybe four years of a Trump presidency will spur more support.