Electoral College a needed safeguard

 

To the Editor:

In response to the Dec. 26 letters: the founding fathers of this country never did intend for our government to be a direct democracy. Rather, they wanted to design a constitutional Federal Republic. The presidential Electoral College establishes two main safeguards:

First, it reduces the odds that a radical dictator could win a national election by fluke.

Second, it balances the need for equal and proportional representation for the individual states in presidential elections.

Without the Electoral College, the high population states such as California, Texas, Illinois or Florida could monopolize federal government action and policy for years and decades on end.

The Electoral College is not obsolete. It is more causally important now than ever. The results of the 2016 presidential election proved this fact once again. God Bless America!

Bob Morris,

Webster

 

Seconds position of guest commentary

 

To the Editor:

I appreciate the Sylva Herald publishing Misty Roberts’ guest columnist piece in the Dec. 26 issue regarding the need to protect female nursing home residents’ right to have intimate care provided by female medical personnel.

I vividly recall as a nursing student 20 years ago overhearing a female resident object to being bathed by a male aide. Unfortunately, her objection was lightheartedly dismissed, and the male aide was allowed to proceed with her intimate care.

Thank you, Misty Roberts, for shedding light on this important and often overlooked issue regarding the need to respect the dignity and modesty of women in long term care facilities.

Kathryn Ross, RN,

Sylva

 

Counter-protester’s actions dangerous

 

To the Editor:

I was at the impeachment rally on Dec. 17, but left shortly before the incident involving a counter-protester.

From all the accounts, which agree in every manner, Rick Wood’s version couldn’t be further from the truth; which isn’t surprising, since he’s only doing what his idol, the president does.

Bottom line, he drove a truck into a crowd of legal protesters on private property, grabbed his Trump flag and waved it around in people’s faces accompanied by spewed obscenities.

The fact that Wood was not arrested on the spot sets a dangerous precedent. Someone might not have been paying attention and didn’t get out of the way in time. Or perhaps someone could have tripped and been caught under the tires. What’s to prevent others from being emboldened with the thought of, “Hey, he drove his truck into a crowd with no consequences … why don’t I try that?”

Just because nobody was injured is no excuse. What if nobody had been injured in Charlottesville, Virginia? Does that make it any less dangerous, threatening and illegal? Next time, someone else could drive their vehicle and ‘claim’ that “I thought I was stepping on the brake, but ‘accidentally’ stepped on the gas instead.”

Same thing; just different results.

Sue Resnik,

Sylva