Electoral College is not the best system

It seems that the IDS editorial staff's not-so-close vote in favor of "Electoral College a fair system" (Nov. 15) is the result of logic tampering. Readers demand a hand count!\nWere the Electoral College to be replaced with a simple popular vote, Montana (to use your example) with its tiny population would still seem to be an optional campaign stop for presidential aspirants. What's so hot about three Electoral College votes out of 538? Or one scrawny million in a nation of 270? Under either system, a candidate could afford to avoid campaigning there, it would seem. \nBut that doesn't happen for two important reasons. First, candidates are obliged to thank every state's party members for their loyalty by a visit or two. Second, candidates must avoid the potentially catastrophic public perception that they are not interested in representing all Americans if elected. \nYou also failed to discuss the real difference the Electoral College makes in close elections, namely that the all-or-nothing approach 48 states take in dispensing Electoral College votes makes most close races seem unequivocal. The historic closeness of this year's presidential race only exposes a weakness in a system that has worked pretty well so far.