I agree with many we need to review and probably reform the way we elect a president (“A vote for a new way,” Sunday editorial).

The Clinton-Trump vote has been heavily discussed, as has campaigns focusing on swing states for electoral votes. Just six states had leverage; Florida and five Rust Belt States gave 99 electoral votes to President Barack Obama in 2012, then switched to Donald Trump. Trump won by less than 0.7 percent, and with less than 48.2 percent of the vote, in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Those 46 electoral votes gave Trump his victory margin. That is before reviewing Florida, where he won by 1.2 percent with only 48.6 percent of the vote.

Small voter swings in these four states would have made the electoral vote close to a deadlock. The pressure for appointed electors to “jump ship” would have been more serious, and requests for recounts in smaller states might have occurred.

Meanwhile, a bigger swing in several big states would have no impact. The logic of “getting out the vote” disintegrated for both parties. California, New York, Texas and Illinois add 142 electoral votes, a significant part of the nation.

I agree that a simple nationwide vote requires significant changes to the long established Constitution, “and the likelihood is all but nil.” Furthermore, there would be needed national oversight over voting in every state, another unnecessary tax burden. What happens if one state decides to alter its laws to let 16-year-olds vote?

An alternative of persuading state electors to agree to vote with the national vote total still has the prospect of a national recount. It will also cause stress in implementation in many states every four years. Many states will face objections to use of their electoral votes to support the “other candidate.”

The plan of electing by Congressional district also has problems. Gerrymandering will become a big issue, and the point will be made this system takes away the “intent of the Founding Fathers that the power should be invested in the states” and given to districts or cities. Furthermore, the majority of states will be unhappy to lose their electoral power, so ratification by three-quarters of the states is unlikely.

There is an alternative system that could meet most expectations. Every state could allocate its assigned electoral votes proportionately to its vote. This would be a simple process all would understand and possibly support. In Georgia, which has 16 electoral votes, the vote was Trump 2.1 million, Clinton 1.9 million, Gary Johnson 125,308. Thus, Georgia’s electoral vote would be Trump 8, Clinton 7, Johnson 1.

The legislature has the power to do this. At first sight, this might be expected to cause trouble among Republican leaders. However, if all states agreed, every state would have a form of “proportional representation.” The electoral vote of every state would reflect its votes.

Perhaps the most significant benefits are that every state could agree to it and have power to implement it. The resulting plan would appear to meet the objectives of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution.

Robert Horne
Gainesville