At 12:27 PM 12/17/00 -0600, dendrite wrote:
>I wrote:
>> Jeroen wrote:
>> >I suppose this has something to do with your antiquated
>> >system of electoral colleges,
>>
>> Oh really? How modern of you.
>>
>> Of course, I have in my hands right now the latest issue of "The
>> Economist." It seems that the Europeans have just had a major sumit
>> where they agreed on the new makeup of th EU's Council of Ministers.
>Here
>> are some of the ministerial allocations:
>> Nation people (*10^6) Votes in Council of Ministers
>> Germany 82 29
>> France 59 29
>> Netherlands 15.8 13
>> Belgium 10.2 12
>> Luxembourg 0.4 4
>> Malta* 0.4 3
>>
>> * - provisional, upon acceptance into membership
>>
>> Lets now realign that for percentages
>> Nation people (*10^6) Votes in Council of Ministers
>> Germany 22% 12%
>> France 16% 12%
>> Netherlands 4% 5.4%
>> Belgium 3% 5.1%
>> Luxembourg 0.1% 1.7%
>> Malta* 0.1% 1.3%
>>
>> So yes, Jeroen, America *may* have antiquated system. But at least it is
>> the antiquated system that the rest of the world is copying for their own
>> experiments in federalism.
>>
>Apples and oranges John.
>Wouldnt the House of Reps be a better comparison?
Not really, because the Europeans don't have direct election of the
Executive. (IIRC, it is the European Parliament that elects the
Commissioner, so the comparison is apt.)
After thinking about this dispute for some time, I've realized that this is
the heart of the disagreement. Those who favor abolishing the electoral
college believe that we should have direct election of the Presidency. Of
course, many countries in the world get by just fine without direct
election of the head of state - Britain is the most obvious example, where
the Prime Minister is elected by Parliament. In the United States, rather
than having Congress elect the President, we elect a special, separate
Congress, for sole purposes of selecting the President.
JDG
_______________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
