Scott G. Winterton, Dnews
Utah's Lt. Governor Gary Herbert certifies the ballots as Utah's Electoral College casts their votes for the President and Vice Presidents of the United States of America from the Supreme Court room at the Capitol in 2008.

Richard Davis' column of Jan. 23, "Ways to make the Electoral College more fair," resonates with me. (I like the "more fair" part.) The Electoral College, instituted to keep the populous urban areas from dominating the less populous areas, is necessary and there should be no discussion to replace it. But each state can change its process, and more fair is desirable.

The current "winner-take-all" method (in 48 states) is unfair as it disenfranchises up to 50 percent of the voters and still favors the urban areas. Consider, if you are a Republican in blue-state California or a Democrat in red-state Utah, why even bother to cast a vote for president?

The Nebraska and Maine models, to which Davis referred, would have resulted in a "more fair" 2012 presidential election, more representative of the nation rather than the lopsided result of Obama – 332, Romney – 206 (61 percent to 38 percent).

Under the Nebraska/Maine model, Electoral College votes would be allocated by two criteria: on the basis of congressional districts, with two votes per state allocated on the basis of the popular vote in the state. This is a more fair approach. It slightly reduces the over-weighting of concentrated voting in high density urban areas, and more fairly represents the country as a whole.

David S. Hullinger