With the election as close as it is, many have been saying we should do away with the electoral college. This would be a very big mistake. Since I now live in Florida, I am sure that my vote would still be important to anyone running for the presidency in the future.

However, being a native of Iowa, I have many friends and relatives who would not have the luxury of saying the same.

Last Tuesday, approximately 102 million people voted for the top four presidential candidates. However, 12 states accounted for nearly 57 million votes or 56 percent of the total number of votes cast.

What does this mean for the other 38 states? For Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Washington and any other state with a large city or cities, the candidates may focus on those areas.

However, would Ames, Madison, Wisc. or any number of other more rural areas draw much if any attention from the presidential candidates? More than likely not.

Like the make up of the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Founding Fathers developed a compromise be-tween large and small states. They were concerned that the smaller states, being just as important to our nation as the larger states, have a fair say in how our nation would be governed.

The total elimination of the Electoral College would be a travesty for the smaller states. One compromise being discussed would be that the electors be allocated by awarding one to the victor in each Congressional District. The two electors attributable to each state’s representation in the Senate would be awarded as a bonus to the winner of the state.

This may be a fair compromise. However, the last time the vote was this close was over 100 years ago. The system as developed was meant for just this type of situation. Since this occurs so rarely, it may be safe to say “If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it.”

W. Alan Williams, C.P.A.

Alumnus

Miami