[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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.
I disagree - if every vote equally then every vote counts. In NY there was
virtually no presidential campaigning because our electoral votes were safely
in Gore's pocket. If the popular vote counted then the candidates would have
to campaign nationally. They could still apeal to local issues and
constituencies but they could not ignore citizens in any state.
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.
The states have the Senate to protect them. We as individuals not residents
of a state vote for president. The president is responsible for those
aspects of government not under the provence of states including foreing
affairs, interstate commerce, and most importantly judicial appointments.
These are matters of national interest equally important to all citizens not
to the states as entities.
The proper unit of power is the individual power is the individual citizen.
