JDG:
> The elctoral system is not tragic... in fact it is one of the centerpieces of our
>federal republic.
I wouldn't call it a centerpiece. More like a relic. And Neither article 2
nor article 12 of the constitution say anything about winner take all in a
state. Why do we do it that way (except for Maine and Nebraska)?
>Just because Gore can rack up huge majorities in California and NY does not mean he
>is any more qualified to be President than the choice >of 30 of the 50 States!
Ah, I see, government of, by and for the states.
and Patrick wrote:
>I had been thinking that the electoral college is an artifact of an earlier
>era that no longer serves any purpose. But I am seeing some arguments that
>make me think twice ...
>First, without an electoral college, presidential candidates can safely
>ignore 75% of the nation and campaign only for votes from California, New
>York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and a few others. A sparsely populated, or
>even modestly populated, state won't even get the minimal attention it does
>now. They become irrelevant. I don't think that's healthy for democracy or
>voter apathy.
>>
But Gore could have spent every day of the last year in Texas and he wouldn't
have won many votes in that state and Bush could have spent every dime he
collected in NY and not won too many people over. I think it would force the
candidates to campaign in _more_ states because the "swing" states wouldn't be
as important anymore. Neither of them spent very much time at all here in
Ca., the most populous state, is that right? The sparsely populated states
you mention get quite the disproportionate amount of attention. I didn't hear
about too many (any?) stops in Alaska or Wyoming or Nevada, sparsely populated
states that weren't strategic. I think a popular vote would force the
candidates to speak to a wider audience.
>Second, the US is one people, but also a collection of states. The electoral
>college means a president is elected by all the people of all the states,
>which is not a bad thing.
I disagree. In Florida, one candidate will get a fraction of a percentage of
the vote less than the other but receive nothing for his trouble. The
minority are effectively disenfranchised, their votes don't count. That
doesn't sound like "all the people" to me.
Doug
