Sorry for losing the proper header from this thread, I did this email (and the last) on eGroups and for some reason eGroups doesn't want to send them directly. How stupid. And since I don't know whether I'll post again before next week, I'll take this chance to wish y'all a great time in whatever you are celebrating even if it's just a few days off work (hell, that's worth celebrating in my book). Now . . . Patrick wrote: > I believe we should ditch the two-party system to give the smaller > parties a larger shot at office. Indeed. There will probably be an unforeseen consequence . . . > Here is the reason why I think we should keep the Electoral College. > Both the east and west coasts are heavily populated, while the central > states are not. Now if we voted only by the popular vote, then the > presidency would be decided by the high population states, while the > lower pop. states would not be represented. I would agree with you if the > population was evenly distributed, however it is not. In my view, the > Electoral College exists to give voice to those states which do not have > much power, and who do not want a group of people who lives 2000 miles to > decide how they are to live their lives. Except that, if you have more than two parties, you will inevitably get what we have in Canada: regionalized representation. In Quebec, you have the Bloc. In Ontario, it's Liberal Party (which is not so liberal in my book, having even quashed legal public protest to save face for Suharto and China). Out West, it's Canadian Alliance (brrrrr) and so on. As soon as you have more than two parties, you will get this. The third major party AFAIK was the NDP, which was from the beginning a Western group whose values and platforms were directed to address the concerns of voters on the prairies first and foremost. So, then you have a new problem, which is how to get these regionalized leaders to cooperate and work together for the good of the whole. But this, I would argue, would result in a much better whole than one that manages to reduce all disagreements, including those with more than two side, to an apparent "either A, or B, all or nothing" approach; in theory such a system may highlight differences and heighten fragmentation, but then again I think that trying to ignore differences and ram things through a binary resolution will tend to heighten fragmentation even more, because more voices and viewpoints fail to be heard. Gord
