----- Original Message -----
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 5:32 PM
Subject: Re: Making Sense of It All
>
> And why is a simple direct popular vote the best way to do that?
>
> After all, which President would be more representative of the people:
> A) A President who has the narrow support of the urban coastal areas,
> producing a narrow overall popular majority, and little support from the
> vast central rural areas?
> B) A President with overwhelming support of the vast central rural areas,
> and a decent minority of support in the urban coastal areas?
>
> Why are you so convinced that candidate A is automatically a better
> representative of the people than candidate B?
>
> Why are you perfectly fine with making the legislative branch of the
> government accountable to rural areas, but are so upset with any attempt
to
> make the executvie branch of the government accountable to the
> less-populated areas?
>
Considering that a large majority of the people live in the populated areas,
and that they pay most of the taxes that finances government, and that most
of the issues dealt with by that government have to do with the population
centers, I dont find any reason that a direct popular vote for president
would be problematic.
Underpopulated states wield a disproportionate amount of power politically.
Here is a challange to rhetoric:
*Show how the underpopulated states were protected by electing a Republican
rather than the person picked by the majority of the people.
(As I understand it, Republicans are the only party to benefit from the
existence of the electoral college.)
*Show how "States rights" would be weakened by a direct election.
xponent
rob
