Joe Gerics states in his letter (December 21) that my argument against the National Popular Vote Compact isn't correct. He says I suggest "that Connecticut voters will be ignored due to our population size in comparison with larger states such as California...However, his argument would hold true for the current system where Connecticut has considerably fewer electoral votes than these states as well."

There is a difference, though, between the two systems, and it's the basic point of the whole argument. Yes, under the current system we have less electoral votes than California, but we do control those votes ourselves. Under the compact we won't. Because Connecticut's electoral college votes will be determined by who gets the most votes nationally, voters in California will have much more influence on who gets Connecticut's votes than Connecticut voters will. And because we won't control our own vote, Connecticut voters will be increasingly ignored - as will those in other smaller states. There's no getting around that.

As for the historical perspective, it should be pointed out that the very form of our government, since its creation, was and is still based on the idea of protecting all the states, and making sure that the small ones do not lose their own voices. That's why our laws are made by a House and Senate. When the Constitution was being created, it was known that the larger states would overwhelm the smaller ones if everything was simply based on population, which was what the larger states, such as Virginia, wanted. To keep this from happening, Congress was set up with two houses: the House of Representatives, where each state is represented based on its population, and the Senate, where each state, large and small, has two votes.

The larger states have a larger say, as is right, but the smaller states can not just be forgotten. They have their own voice. The Electoral College is explicitly based on Congress: the number of electors each state has is based on how many people it has in Congress - its senators and representatives - and for the same reason: to make sure each state will still have an individual voice, and will still have its own say in national politics.

Despite Mr. Gerics’ comments on how some ideas are outdated, I don't think that one is.

The National Popular Vote Compact may sound like a good idea at first, but if you think about it, you'll see that it will result in the smaller states, such as Connecticut, no longer having their own say in Presidential elections, and that is not a good thing.
Greg Darak