The Right Way to Elect a President?

There must be a better method (''Why the Electoral College lives on,'' Cover Story, Nov. 20). Interesting alternatives to the current arrangement include:

-- A direct-vote approach. If no candidate receives 40% of the popular vote, there will be a runoff between the top two. After all, voters are trusted with the power to choose directly every other elected official--from school committee members to senators. Why should the President and Vice-President be exceptions?

-- A district plan, awarding two electoral votes to a state's popular-vote leader and the others to the winner in each congressional district. Maine has used this method since 1972, and Nebraska since 1992.

-- A proportional method, dividing each state's electoral vote to mirror its popular vote. This also does away with the winner-take-all nature of counting electoral votes--which is inconsistent with the ''one-man, one-vote'' principle.

-- Majority-preference voting. Voters rank their preferences. If no candidate wins more than 50%, then the bottom voter-getter is eliminated and the second choices of voters are redistributed. The process is repeated until a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote.

-- A ''national bonus plan'' that would maintain the Electoral College but add 102 electoral votes to the existing total of 538 and award all of the bonus votes to the national popular-vote winner.

Now is the time to begin the national debate on replacing antiquated election machinery.

Jim Eskin
San Antonio

You hit the nail on the head. More people need to understand the intent of the Electoral College before they start clamoring for an amendment to the Constitution to change it.


There are some changes that could make sense. Rather than winner-take-all, each of a state's electoral votes could be tied to a congressional district. The Presidential nominee who wins that district would get its one vote. The winner of the statewide popular vote would get both senatorial electoral votes.

If a district vote count is very close, instead of recounts, court challenges, etc., the nominees could split the congressional-district vote, with each getting one-half. If the statewide vote is too close, the two Senate votes could be split one each. The closeness could be set as tight as 1% or 2%.

This plan would be much fairer than winner-take-all. Third-party candidates would have more chance to capture electoral votes. Vote skullduggery would have less impact. A slim majority would not force its candidate on the whole district or state. Also, rural states would not be overwhelmed by bloc votes in the cities. That would preserve one of the purposes of the Electoral College.

Gerald C. Sozio
Los Angeles


The argument that the Electoral College keeps small-population states from being ignored is absurd. Do Presidential candidates now go to campaign in South Dakota or Delaware? The truth is that all regions of the country would benefit by nationalizing the tally--making every voter equal, at least in theory. Thus it would make sense for candidates to make media-enhanced visits everywhere to pick up supporters.

As things stand now, both candidates write off most of the country because certain states are seen as falling in one camp or the other. This cedes dominance to the other party in a given state, causing the weaker party to continue to wither and debate to be stifled. The injustice is that the votes of the losing candidate in a state are given to the winner, disenfranchising minority voters.

Scott S. Smith
West Hollywood, Calif.


I see no basis for Merle Black's assertion that a President George W. Bush ''would not get right-wing [Supreme Court] appointments through the Senate'' (''What's the mandate?'' Cover Story, Nov. 20). Associate Justice Clarence Thomas was approved when the Democrats held a 10-seat majority in the Senate. Surely an equally conservative jurist could win senatorial approval in a Senate with a Republican majority.

Robert Corbett
Berkeley, Calif.

Biotech Foods: Put the FDA in Charge

Did you know that the U.S. Food & Drug Administration has no authority to require a review of the safety of new genetically engineered foods? Any review is voluntary. That's certainly no way to create consumer confidence (''After Taco Bell: Can biotech learn its lesson?'' News: Analysis & Commentary, Nov. 6).

Genetically engineered foods are an important part of the food supply, with potential for benefiting consumers and farmers. But as the food supply changes, it is essential that we take steps to maintain public confidence in food safety. I recently introduced the Genetically Engineered Foods Act to ensure the safety of biotech foods and assure consumers that the government is doing its job. This bill is designed to strengthen the FDA's role in the oversight of biotech foods.

The bill adds important refinements to the Food & Drug Administration's voluntary review process, and it also makes pre-market reviews mandatory. If the bill passes, the FDA would also be required to initiate a testing program to screen supermarket products and to minimize the likelihood of contamination by another ''Starlink''--an unapproved genetically engineered ingredient. The bill also makes the review process more transparent, so that consumer representatives and the public can become involved in the decision-making process.

Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.)
U.S. Senate
Washington

Users' Identity Is Bound Up with AOL

Perhaps the reason there are so many users of America Online Inc. is that those who bolt lose their e-mail address, e.g., ______@aol.com. Imagine having to notify friends, family, and colleagues every time you change your Internet service provider (''AOL vs. MSN: A question of style?'' Technology & You, Nov. 20). Thus the attraction of free e-mail services such as Hotmail and Yahoo! Mail: There are no switching costs per se, since these services are independent of the ISP.

Steven Woo
Los Angeles

Women Make Good Managers. So What?

The finding that women make effective managers is old news (''As leaders, women rule,'' Special Report, Nov. 20). The article suggests that new research showing female managers' effectiveness is compelling because it is ''based on results from actual performance evaluation rather than surveys, etc.'' I find solace knowing it reinforces what I, along with others, have been saying and writing for so many years: that women represent undervalued and underutilized human capital. Organizations are beginning to realize they can no longer ignore this reality.

Judy B. Rosener
Irvine, Calif.


You report differences between female and male managers that are interesting but not crucial. The real question a company can profit from is: What talents prove necessary to succeed in each specific job?

My research shows gender is not the key to on-the-job success. Instead, a company needs to do a benchmarking study to identify behaviors and mental abilities of employees who succeed in each job. This enables the company to compare each applicant, male or female, with its successful current employees. Such test benchmarking is objective and non-gender-oriented. Prosperous companies are staffed by productive, dependable human beings hired because they possess crucial job-related talents--and not for any other reason.

Michael W. Mercer
Barrington, Ill.

A Wintry Welcome for Workers on Visas

I am a Canadian citizen who recently moved to the U.S. with an H-1B visa. ''Workers of the world: Welcome'' (Government, Nov. 20) is misleading for those who have obtained a visa but are waiting for permanent residency. Normally, the visa is valid for three years, but because the number of visas has increased in the past few years, it takes more than three years to obtain permanent residency. Others have to renew their visas and clog up the system even more. It is a frustrating and slow process.

I do a lot of traveling outside the U.S., and the immigration officers do not exactly welcome workers with visas. We are always last in line, we have to fill out an 1-94 card each time we leave, and each officer interprets things differently. Please don't get me wrong. I appreciate the opportunity to work and live in the U.S., but the processes need to be improved before we really feel welcome.

Richard Boulanger
New York