Letters to the Editor | Nov. 8, 2024

The election is over, and the voters have spoken. Incorrectly, I think, but so be it. The stock market is rising (for now), and presumably, there will be tax cuts. I intend to take a Donald Trump approach now and use my share of that money for myself. Your home was destroyed by a hurricane and there is no longer a Federal Emergency Management Agency to help you? How unfortunate, but it’s not my problem. Your job was lost because the new high tariffs caused the factory to close? A shame, but it’s not my problem. You’re a young person and are having trouble finding work because there are no job support resources? That is a challenge, but it’s not my problem — and you’ll still owe me my Social Security when I become eligible soon. See? I’m learning already.

Peter H. Atherton, Philadelphia

Donald Trump was not my choice, but I hope he has success for the American people. Once again, the former party of the people, the Democrats, decided in another populist moment to do the same as they did in 2016 and run a corporate candidate. Kamala Harris started off on the right foot by selecting an actual populist as her running mate. But then she ran away from populism (paid family leave, health care for all, etc.) and into the arms of Liz and Dick Cheney, two neocons. Not only that, but she also refused to take a stand against the war in Gaza by using the threat of a weapons embargo against the Israeli government if they didn’t achieve a cease-fire. So we have the fake populist from the party of Wall Street. I hope he does a good job.

Roy Lehman, Woolwich Township

History will hold Joe Biden fully responsible for this catastrophic election outcome. Four years ago, he ran promising to be a bridge to the future. Instead, he greedily decided to try to hold onto power, even though his favorability ratings had been underwater from the get-go. Also to blame are his inner circle of advisers who witnessed his profound mental decline and did not have the guts to advise him against a rerun, and failing that, go public. If he had withdrawn even as much as a year ago, the Democratic Party could have had a rejuvenating primary season and settled on a battle-tested candidate to oppose Donald Trump. I do not fault Kamala Harris. She did the best she could with the hand she was given. But Biden and his advisers will live in infamy for this debacle.

Linda Bernstein, Philadelphia

Can we stop undervaluing public health? Can we teach people supply and demand? Virus = inflation. Bird flu virus = killing of poultry = high egg prices. COVID-19 = shutdown of country = recession. To combat recession = deficit spending to keep businesses afloat (people forget we had a pandemic). Vaccines and herd immunity = stop pandemic = released cabin fever = sudden buying spree = not enough supply = rise in prices.

In many ways, Donald Trump’s failure to control COVID-19 led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Joe Biden’s rescue plan and aggressive vaccination program helped end the pandemic and led to the sudden released cabin fever that led to higher prices. Without the stimulus package, the country would be digging out of a recession. So ironically, Trump’s pandemic failure and Biden’s success in keeping the economy afloat and ending the pandemic has led to Trump’s reelection. Let no good deed go unpunished.

Walter Tsou, Philadelphia

There are approximately 650,000 Americans living in shelters or tents. There are 44.2 million people in the United States living in food-insecure households, and 60% of America’s schools have at least one major building element in disrepair. From president to county offices, more than $10.5 billion was spent on campaign ads in the 2024 election cycle. How about we remedy this nonsensical discrepancy in funding priorities by creating a more palatable national mechanism for the next presidential cycle?

Those entities paying for political advertising starting in September 2028 through early November 2028 will donate the value of at least 15% of their total advertising buys to preapproved, apolitical, nonprofit organizations through the duration of the political season. This effort requires commitment, planning, programming, verifiable input, and prioritizing diverse needs forecasted for 2028. It could also reduce the frequency of some advertising and, at the same time, create sustainable impacts. With the 2024 election results delighting some, disappointing others, and disregarded by many more, I think we can all agree there is something obscene about repetitive political ad spending in light of ongoing challenges faced by so many of our fellow Americans.

Mary Kay Owen, Downingtown

Two recent letters on the Electoral College completely miss what would give truer representation of the will of the people: eliminate the presidency and the Senate and redistrict the country along roughly equal population boundaries without regard to state borders. Whichever party gets the most votes chooses its leader — who only has one vote and cannot veto anything. Cabinet heads are chosen from the elected representatives, not political appointees with no direct obligation to the voters. Although this would eliminate the concept of the state for federal purposes, why should a system based on the remnant of the British colonial system dictate what is now an ineffective system of government that rewards the minority by allowing it to stop the will of the majority? The Bill of Rights, if respected, should protect the minority. I have no illusion that this will ever happen, but a parliamentary form of government eliminates the excuses for not being able to govern.

James Hohmann, Langhorne, jimhohmann@comcast.net

A recent writer argued that abolishing the Electoral College would disenfranchise voters in small states. This is not the case at all. A national popular vote would simply equalize the effect of each vote and eliminate the overweight that now exists in favor of voters in smaller states. There is nothing unreasonable about having the presidency decided according to who gets the most votes. After all, it’s the way every other election is decided.

True, voters in sparse areas might receive less attention from the candidates, but, again, that is the case in every other election because candidates go where the votes are. I suspect those who argue in favor of the current system do so because they recognize that the majority of voters don’t agree with their political choices. Of course, there would be one serious problem with a national popular vote. Whereas we now have to suffer through disputes and contests in a few swing states, a national popular vote could produce challenges in every precinct. Perhaps that could be cured by reforming the Electoral College to reflect the actual population or number of voters in each state.

John W. Morris, Philadelphia

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.