I respond to Peter Fromuth’s letter (March 6) supporting LD 418 (LD 816), requiring Maine’s Electoral College electors support whomever wins the national popular vote, regardless if that candidate won Maine’s popular vote.

Fromuth calls concerns about ignoring rural states “ironic” because candidates already ignore rural states using the Electoral College. Therefore, Maine should support LD 816.

Hillary Clinton’s insistence on ignoring rural states cost her the election, so clearly that strategy doesn’t always work.

Let’s assume that Fromuth is right. The Electoral College encourages candidates to focus on more populous states. LD 816 doesn’t address that problem. In fact, rather than ignored sometimes, LD 816 guarantees Maine would be ignored all the time.

Maine tried state-wide popular vote. It produced governors with less than 50 percent support. That is why Mainers twice voted for ranked-choice voting.

Consider the anger when presidents win with 48 percent. Now consider that anger when presidents win with two-thirds of people voting against them.

Fromuth calls the system “winner-take-all” because candidates take all of a state’s electoral votes with as little as a 1 percent margin of victory, ignoring 49 precent of that state’s population. But Maine is not a “winner-take-all” state.

Maine’s congressional district electors vote for their district’s preferred candidate. Requiring a state-wide presidential popular vote will result in Cumberland, York and Mid-Coast counties deciding the 2nd District’s preferred candidate.

If people want elections changed, don’t support a plan that would make things worse. Support Maine’s solution. Push to distribute electors based on congressional district’s popular vote, eliminating “winner-take-all” entirely.

Randy Lautz, West Poland