John D. Giorgis wrote:
>
>And why is a simple direct popular vote the best way to do that?
>
Because it is the way that best affirms the principal one person, one vote.
For president, people in California get one vote, and people in Montana get
5 votes. Lets use an example from the state I live in. Texas gets 32
electoral college votes. Its 1990 population (the basis of the electoral
college votes in 2000) pegged its population at about 16 million.
Wyomin, Alaska, Vermont, D.C., North Dakota, Delaware, South Dakota,
Montana, Rhode Island, and Idaho also have 32 electoral votes between them,
but they only have a population of 6 million. Why do people in these states
count more than Texans?
>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 geographic minorities the important ones? Why are rural voters
enshrined, and various types of urban voters lower class people that are
lumped together?
What about asking the same question in race. What about a president with a
decent minority of white voters and an overwhelming majority of black
voters? How is this different from urban/rural?
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
