Trent England’s op-ed column in the
The argument has now changed to promote an urban versus rural issue. England writes the college’s purpose was to protect those of us who live in small states. Not so. If anything, more educated residents of cities were regarded as better qualified to vote. He also promotes the college as more democratic. If he has in mind a popular vote without the college, an alternative definition of democracy must be created.
The college’s system does not allow the 49% losing side to be combined with similar votes of other states, and therefore they are relegated to the trash bin. That is not democracy as I understand it.
Gordon ClouserDurango
