Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Short of amendment,
Electoral College a fact

Re: “Electoral College leaves majority without a voice” (Page A12, Sept. 22).

What many fail to understand is that the United States was not created as a democracy but, as Benjamin Franklin was quoted as replying as he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, “A Republic if you can keep it.”

The main difference between the two is that in a democracy, every course of action the government takes, including the selection of the president, would be determined by a popular vote of the people, while in a republic, the people would express their will only indirectly through elected representatives.

The Founding Fathers concluded that a republic, including the idea of the Electoral College, was most likely to guarantee the rights and freedoms of all the people, and specifically to protect the rights and freedoms of the minority from the will of a localized majority.

Short of a constitutional amendment outlawing its use, the Electoral College is here to stay.

James Burstedt
Danville

Voters face competing
visions for America

One thing that most people on both sides of today’s political divide agree on is this: In November and the coming years Americans will decide between two radically different visions of what kind of country we should be.

Do you want an America in which the government will increasingly act as our protector and provider, but will also tell us what we must or must not do in countless areas of our lives? This includes what we can do with our money, property and children, and whether or not we can express our beliefs freely and openly, teach them to our children and, even, seek to influence society accordingly (no matter how unpopular our beliefs will be to some).

Or will we preserve the freedom (with only minimal government limits) that made the United States (though imperfect in many ways) the most prosperous and popular nation the world has ever seen?

Christopher Andrus
Dublin

Lebanon cellular device
explosions are terrorism

Re: “At least 9 killed in explosion of pagers” (Page A1, Sept. 18).

A terrorist is one who uses unlawful violence, intimidation, and fear to achieve political aims.

Related Articles

Letters: Palo Alto Airport | Board commentary | Future leaders | On right track

Letters: Walnut Creek Council | Failing grade | Governors’ failure | Late denunciation | Constitutional republic

Letters: Stanford’s need | Lot takeover | Cultural connection | Individual right | Losing big

Letters: Price recall | Violence abroad | Trump optics | Priority No. 1 | Gender shouldn’t matter

Letters: Transparency needed | Founders’ regulations | Voiceless majority | Support of the honorable

I’m very ashamed that I was once awed by the intellectual brilliance exhibited by those terrorists who orchestrated the plot to launch America’s expensive planes, stockpiled with explosive liquids, into buildings deemed symbols of our wealth and power.

I’m equally ashamed about being more recently awed by the intellectual brilliance exhibited by those who orchestrated the plot to transform ordinary communication devices, located in the hands and pockets of their enemies, into weapons of self-destruction.

My greatest shame, however, comes from knowing that my government supports, through money and arms, the same government that placed at risk every man, woman, child and animal in the streets, homes, marketplaces, hospitals and schools of Lebanon.

I am not in the least ashamed of calling a terrorist a terrorist when the name fits.

Linda Thorlakson
Castro Valley