----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua Bell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:37 PM
Subject: RE: Proportional Representation Re: Winner Takes All
> > From: dendriite [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >
> > This is the only example I am aware of (in the US) where
> > voters are not equal.
>
> But what about the senate? Yes, your vote had the same selective power
> as any other vote for the senator in that state, but when your senator
> votes he/she is voting for or against an issue with power that is
> irrespective of population and totally determined by arbitrary lines on
> a map. The vote of a senator from Alaska has the same power as the vote
> of a senator from California, even though they represent a vastly
> different number of people.
>
> Isn't that another example?
>
Apples and oranges Joshua. I dont vote in the Senate even though I do vote
for a Senator. A Senator does not vote *my* will except by coincidence.
A Senator is a representative of a State as a whole or a faction of that
particular state and His/Her vote is only very tenuously connected to my
will in any possible circumstance.
There is very little resemblence between my will and the votes of Phil
Graham or Kay Bailey Hutchinson. Even if the Senators from Texas were
individuals more in line with my thoughts on the issues, the same argument
would still apply.
*My* vote is an extension of *my* will, and in every voting circumstance,
should be equal to the vote of any other voter in any discrete election.
Anything less is to say, as an example, "I am 3/5s of an American when I
vote for President". Or as another example, "the needs, desires, and wisdom
of a citizen of Montana are more important than the needs, desires, and
wisdom of a citizen of California in regards to the election of our highest
office".
Smaller states are proportionally represented (by population) in the House,
and disproportionally powerful (by population) in the Senate.
Why should this disproportionate power be extended to the election of the
President? It makes less populated states overly powerful in contrast to
their contribution to the nation as a whole.
I'm not married to this proposition, but recognize its strangeness as
compared to other types of elections. I eagerly await rebuttals. This is an
interesting subject.
xponent
rob
