Re: “Letter to the editor: National Popular Vote a rebuke of our Founders” (June 14, Page A6):

Why do the Portland Press Herald and other media keep publishing smokescreen arguments against state laws pledging their electors to the candidate who wins the popular vote once the number of such states’ electors totals the 270 threshold needed to elect the president?

These specious arguments include:

• Choosing the president via popular vote would allow candidates to focus all their campaigning on large states or cities.

• The above would diminish the influence of people from smaller states.

So what if candidates focus campaigns on large population centers? Elections would most likely cost less and take less time … that’s a good thing!

As to diminishing the influence of voters from smaller states: It’s bad enough that the Senate gives undue influence to voters from small states … and that’s a big part of the problem in Congress.  It’s one thing to respect minority rights, it’s another to allow the minority to gum up the works and bring government and democracy to a screeching halt, as is the case now.

It’s time to end gridlock, and cease allowing the minority views of conservatives to subvert democracy with illegal anti-democracy efforts and laws to keep nonconservatives from voting, diminish the weight of said voters, gerrymander districts and pack the courts with justices who support these anti-democratic practices.

It’s way past time for all votes for president to count equally! If conservative arguments can’t win sufficient votes, maybe it’s time for them to adopt policies and arguments that will.

Rick Kelley

Windham