On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:47:26 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Electorial College is in place so that the
> American People will be prevented from electing a
> Hamster as president, and have the results validated,
> something that happened at my University for Student
> Body President. Also, by having that disconnect from
> the will of the majority of Americans, the Electors
> (theoretically) can prevent a candidate that will come
> into office that will opress a minority willfully
> ("Tyrrany of the Majority" and all that).Except that the winning party gets to pick the electors, so if the Hamster Dance party wins, we get pro-hamster electors and a hamster president. Same thing if the Tyranny Party gets elected. The EC makes a lot of sense if there were 3+ presidential candidates all getting substantial *electoral* votes. Imagine if Nader was popular enough to actually win some EC votes, (but not enough to be anywhere near winning), while Kerry was also short of winning. Nader's electors, prefering Kerry over Bush, could side with Kerry, perhaps putting him over the top. But with a 2 party system where 3rd parties have little chance of getting any electoral votes - especially because of the states' "winner takes all" system - the EC doesn't serve much purpose, IMHO. > Although the system can nerf election results > occasionally, I think its a good system with some very > good thought behind it. I agree that there's a lot of good though behind it, but I think that times have changed and the system doesn't serve us that well any longer, as it stands. But really my main argument was the need to fix the "winner takes the state" system rather than to toss the EC out altogether. -bryon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
