December's question asked...

QUESTION OF THE MONTH?

December's question asked readers whether they supported the Electoral College system and how they would reform the way we select our president.

How should we choose our president?

Small states still need protection

The 2000 presidential election was a perfect example that the Electoral College system works. Our Founding Fathers developed it so that a "regional majority" could not sway the outcome.

Had Vice President Al Gore Won the election, based on his slim popular vote margin, he would have been a candidate selected by a regional majority, mostly a handful of cities.

If the urbanites of our country decide the election, candidates would stop campaigning outside heavily populated states.

In elections where there is a clear winner in the popular vote as well as electoral count, the Electoral College seems redundant.

However, in a close race, the Electoral College is a shining example of our Founding Fathers' foresight as well as of the basic principle of equal representation upon which our Constitution is founded.

Debbie Marino, Bel Air

We are a republic of 50 diverse states. The Electoral College supports that fact.

George W. Pfeiffer, Bel Air

We should not abandon the Electoral College. It was designed to provide fairness among states -- equalizing the impact of the small states with the large states. Its intention is still valid today.

Thank God our Founding Fathers had the foresight to design such a system. It has stood the test of time.

But the balloting in many different states is an abomination. Punching holes in a card is utterly impractical.

Until voting is done in the home by computer, some form of optically scanned ballots would remove human hands from examining votes -- which is a sure-fire opportunity for mischief or mistakes.

John Lentz, Lutherville

If this past election were based on total popular votes there undoubtedly would have been a call for a national hand recount, creating 50 Floridas.

And an election based on popular votes would bring out numerous special-interest candidates, splintering the vote.

How would the winner be judged? A simple majority? A plurality? A runoff?

Changing a system that works would lead to new problems and weaken the power of smaller states -- and the concept of federalism created by the founders.

Alfred L. Peterson, Edgewood

The process for selecting the president should remain as it is.

However, the process of voting should be changed. We need a new device or voting machine. We should never again have to try to figure out a voter's intent.

A nation that can put people in space surely can come up with a reliable device.

Louis Eubank Baltimore

The Electoral College forces the president to spread the wealth of the country even to the tiniest state. It ensures he extends the federal presence to all states, regardless of their population.

This is important in fulfilling the Constitution's goal of "forming a more perfect union."

Solomon Omo-Osagia II, Baltimore

The more people turn out to vote, the larger the state's number of electors should be.

Under these rules, more people should become more interested in voting, to increase the electors from their state.

I also believe we should adopt a national ballot.

Beatrice Sapperstein, Reisterstown

One reform I believe necessary is to provide a proportional distribution of a state's electoral votes based on the distribution of that state's popular vote.

This would not only more adequately show the relative strengths of the two major political parties but give a greater political voice to third-party candidates.

Sid Leibovitz, Baltimore

To protect the role of voters in smaller states, we should keep the Electoral College. In a popular voting system, less-populous state voters could not practically influence a national election.

But I think electors should be selected based on the vote in a congressional district rather than in the state at large. Such a system would give voters in Maryland's eight congressional districts a chance to be represented, rather than being outvoted by a few of the larger political subdivisions.

The results may be the same, but the sense of having a chance to have one's vote count could foster more involvement in the process.

Sam R. Davis Jr., Towson

Our electoral system for president must be revised.

Let's continue to count votes by states, but have each precinct give its winner one vote, providing a divided state total, rather than a winner-take-all system. This way, Maryland's Eastern Shore would not be disenfranchised, as it is under the current system.

Caleb R. Kelly, Claiborne

Don't change our present system. If we went by popular votes, any slimeball could get enough votes to win.

But we should have a unified ballot nationwide.

Ellen Lewis, Glen Burnie

I suggest:

Combining the Electoral College and popular systems by pro-rating the electoral votes according to the popular vote in each state;

No recounts except statewide;