This is in response to the Sun Journal article, “Electoral vote change in state?” (Feb. 18).

Here we go again. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by about 2.3 million votes out of roughly 129.1 million votes, which means she won the popular vote by roughly 1.78 percent.

There are 538 votes in the Electoral College. Donald Trump earned 304 Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 Electoral College votes (Trump had two Electoral College votes defect or he would have had 306 Electoral College votes). Clinton had eight Electoral College votes try to defect. That is 56.5 percent of the Electoral College votes for Trump to Clinton’s 43.4 percent, with 0.1 percent actually defecting.

Trump won the popular vote in 30 out of 50 states; that is 60 percent for him, compared to Clinton’s 40 percent.

Clinton won the popular vote by a small percentage. Trump won when measured by several other ways and by larger to huge percentages.

Throwing Maine votes away to agree with the popular vote is myopic. That could mean that Maine votes don’t matter. Neither do votes in 29 other states. That is more than half of the states. Do people really want only 20 states deciding what is best for the other 30 states?

I believe history proves that such a case would lead to far less desirable forms of government. For example: If 80 percent of Maine voters voted for the opposite candidate than the one who won the national popular vote, Mainers’ votes would all be thrown out. The same could go for all of the other less populous states.

Why should how the rest of the country votes affect how Maine voters vote? Doesn’t Maine’s motto, “Dirigo,” mean “I lead”?

Rural voters don’t always have the same ideas, issues or opinions as urban voters. In a popular election, the choice for president could be determined by California and roughly 20 large metropolitan areas. Does that mean that when California and those roughly 20 large metropolitan areas say “jump,” the rest of the U.S. says “How high?”

I hope not.

Tere Porter, Norway