In her letter to the editor (Feb. 28), Charlotte Wink urges legislators to oppose a bill (LD 419) requiring Maine to join a multi-state Compact (the “Direct Popular Vote”) assigning each signatory’s electors to the winner of the national popular vote for U.S. president, effectively sidelining the Electoral College. The Compact takes effect when states with 270 or more combined electoral votes have signed on.
Ironically, Wink’s concern is better served by the Compact she opposes than by the Electoral College. She argues that without the lure of each state’s electoral votes, presidential candidates would focus on only a handful of populous states. Yet that exists now. The Electoral College reinforces it. Under the winner-take-all system of the Electoral College (except in Maine and Nebraska) it is irrelevant whether an opponent wins by a little or a lot because they still get all a state’s electoral votes.
Under direct popular vote, the opposite is true. A candidate might expect to win or lose a state, but the focus would be on how the whole country votes, not the states; hence, the size of the vote margin matters hugely.
Far from becoming voice-less, Wink’s voice and vote would matter much more under direct popular vote.
Peter Fromuth, Yarmouth
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.