I would find Peter Konieczko’s Jan. 3 letter – about putting in place the national popular vote instead of the Electoral College – funny if it were not so sad.

Last August there was an editorial in another Maine newspaper on that subject, which, like the argument in Mr. Konieczko’s letter, gets it backward. It is the national popular vote that will disenfranchise millions, encourage candidates to bypass all but a handful of battleground states, drag down voter turnout and erode confidence in our democracy and government.

A national popular vote would add battleground cities to the battleground states. Cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, New York and Boston could easily provide the votes needed to elect a president. No need for candidates to visit states with small populations like Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Montana or Wyoming. Even states with larger populations could be overwhelmed by battleground cities.

Why would anyone support the national popular vote, in which their vote didn’t count toward the outcome unless they voted for the candidate who won in battleground cities or the state(s) with a larger population? You might as well stay home.

Maine at least makes an attempt to balance the different political leanings of its two congressional districts by awarding its Electoral College votes according to the popular vote in each district. Perhaps that method should be adopted by other states instead of destroying the Electoral College, which ensures that voters in all states have a say in electing our president.

Helen A. Shaw
Rockport

Copy the Story Link