Readers Write (Nov. 27): 'Make up or break up,' the Electoral College

While I respect Paul John Scott's right to invite or not invite guests to his Thanksgiving table ("After the election: Make up or break up," Nov. 20), to banish former guests because of how they voted strikes me as antithetical to keeping with the spirit of the holiday. My husband and I are very liberal, yet we open our house to those misguided relatives who probably voted for Trump. If we start to apply litmus tests to friends, family and neighbors, we will only become more divided.

Perhaps Scott should ask his friends why they voted for Trump. There may be fringe elements who did so because they are racist or right-wing conspiracy nuts, but the majority of them probably always vote Republican and voted their pocketbook. After four years, they'll figure out the failure of trickle-down economics; that low taxes are for the rich, not the middle class; that steel mills and mining are not coming back; and that deporting millions of hardworking immigrants will hit the wealthy owners of meat-processing plants, corporate farms and, yes, hotels. Many low-level jobs will go unfilled. Small towns will suffer the negative impact by losing population.

In 2020, let's hope the Democrats nominate Elizabeth Warren, the woman who should have been their candidate in the first place. This year, for the first time since I was a small child, this political-science major will probably not watch the presidential inauguration, but I fervently pray that the new administration works for all Americans.

We gather together for Thanksgiving to acknowledge we are grateful to live in a nation that cherishes free speech. We still have work to do regarding true equality, equity and freedom from want. Liberal Democrats can't do this alone. We must work together. We must be able to reach common ground.

• • •

Scott will undoubtedly get flack for his delicious commentary suggesting he would disinvite Trump voters from his heart and his Thanksgiving table. It is important to remember the important work of satire in effective public discourse. If Jonathan Swift could suggest eating Irish babies in an effort to awaken the British to the plight of the poor, then "no mashed potatoes" seems a mild admonition.

• • •

• • •

I just returned from a Florida visit to my one Republican friend. Whereas previous trips have spawned uncomfortable moments and occasional hard feelings, this one was different, and startling. I went with the determination not to engage, or argue. When I could agree with her, I did. When I couldn't, I mumbled something noncommittal and changed the subject.

Then came the moment I didn't even know I had been waiting for: She claimed Hillary Clinton had lost the popular vote. This was obviously false, and I suspected it came from a "false news" plant or alt-right website. I commented that there were false news stories out there, then said, "That fact seems wrong. Why don't you Google it?" When she found a neutral site, she learned Hillary had won by more than a million votes. It showed clearly that anyone who claimed Trump had won that vote had to be outright lying, and she said she would be more careful, less gullible.

We can't make new "old friends." Let's be careful about tossing them aside, and work on ways to find common ground or gently disagree. I deplore Trumpism, but I love my friend, and she's worth the effort it takes to hang on. Stick to facts and avoid opinions; maybe that'll work.

• • •

We have our work cut out for us. Trump's inviting a disciple of white supremacy into the White House inner circle is a terrifying prospect that his hateful campaign rhetoric was mere prelude.

America's creed of equality — regardless of race, religion, gender — has been a beacon to the world. Thousands of patriots have lost their lives in defense of it. We must vigilantly resist, at every turn, the erosion of our values of equal worth and opportunity. We must express outrage and come to the aid of our fellow citizens every time we encounter hate speech and behavior. This is how we make America great again, in spite of Donald Trump.

On D.J. Tice's defense of the Electoral College (Opinion Exchange, Nov. 20):

California has 66 times the population of Wyoming, but only 18 times the electoral vote. New York has 33 times the population of Wyoming, but less than 10 times the electoral vote. And our home state of Minnesota has nearly 10 times the population of Wyoming, but only just more than 3 times the electoral vote. Or, looking at it another way, Minnesota's electors each "represent" 545,000 voters while Wyoming's each "represent" 194,000. This is not just. In a democratic republic, representation should be as evenly distributed as possible, not skewed in favor of voters in less populated states. It is long past time we abolished the Electoral College and elected the president by popular vote, but Republicans won't support that because they have benefited from its existence.

In each of the five presidential elections in which the electoral vote did not match the popular vote, Democrats won the popular vote but lost the presidency. Donald Trump claimed the election was "rigged." If so, it was rigged in his favor due to the anachronistic Electoral College.

• • •

I recognize the importance of the Electoral College as a means for all 50 states to have a voice in presidential elections (compared with a simple popular-vote system that would deter candidates from campaigning anywhere beyond major metropolitan areas). Yet one can't ignore the fact that the current method of allocating electoral votes favors smaller, less-populated states such as Delaware and Wyoming. This is because each state's electoral vote total is equal to the quantity of its congressional representatives. Whereas U.S. House seats are allocated based on a state's population, every state is allotted two U.S. Senate seats regardless of population.

It seems that one way to retain the intent of the Electoral College while also apportioning electoral votes in a more equitable manner would be to remove U.S. Senate seats from the equation and award electoral votes based only on the quantity of U.S. House seats. Consequently, the total number of electoral votes would be reduced to 438, with 220 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems like a reasonable reform that would address the concerns of both proponents and opponents of the Electoral College.