At 06:29 PM 11/15/00 -0600, dendrite wrote:
>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.
Why is it that weighting for small states in determining the composition of
the legislative branch is o.k., but weighting for small states in
determining the composition of the executive branch is not?
You ask, "Why should this disproportionate power be extended to the
election of the
President?"
I ask, "Why not?"
Unless you believe that there should be no weighting for small states,
anywhere, or ever - I have no problem with doing it in both branches of
government. Indeed, in the Senate, all States are made equal - a very
disproportionate weighting. The electoral college, however, is different
weighting slightly for small states, but still given a great deal more
weight to larger states.
Finally, a random thought - isn't the thing that is most benefitting the
small states the limiting of the House of Representatives to only 435
members? Think about it.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Now is not the Time for Third Chances,
It is a Time for New Beginnings."
- George W. Bush 8/3/00
******************VOTE BUSH / CHENEY 2000 *******************
