In response to Sydell Shayer’s quote where she states: “We can do something about it” (WKT, May 24). How about winning an election fair and square instead of trying to subvert the Constitution? I thought the Democratic party was about “equal protection under the law?” When did this party become the party of “let’s change the rules and subvert the law when we don’t like the results of an election?”

Ms. Shayer claims Americans are becoming more knowledgeable, then follows up with a falsehood by claiming America is a democracy. America is not a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic. If Ms. Shayer and the League of Women Voters don’t like our system of government, then the way to change it is spelled out in our Constitution. But, as she admits, they would probably fail in amending the Constitution.

Our system is a republic in that the founders understood that the public is the only legitimate sovereign of government. It is not wholly democratic, in that they feared the abuse of that authority by the people and designed an instrument of government intended to keep temporary, imprudent and intemperate outbursts of public opinion from dominating the body politic.

Our Founding Fathers had the wisdom, and used political philosophers such as John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu and others who had learned from the mistakes of other systems of government, and did the hard work to produce the best constitution and system of government ever devised by the human race.

My question to Ms. Shayer and the League of Women Voters is why do they want Ms. Clinton over President Trump? President Trump’s economic policies have more women in the workforce than ever before, and their wages are rising. Is this not a good thing for the League of Women Voters?

Kirkwood