>Translation: states where your vote doesn't mean squat, especially if >you're in the minority party there. �Both parties know who will win so >neither will expend much effort (if any) in these places. > >Even though I'm planning to vote for the guy who will win my state, I >resent the fact that my vote won't matter at all *regardless* of who I >voted for. States where your vote has disproportional voting power. >Both parties will expend great efforts (and $$$) to win votes in these >places. > >Is this really a desirable system for a democracy (or, ok, a >republic)? �Any good justifications for it? �Why should we want the >voters in a handful of states have so much influence over the final >results? �Why isn't there more call for change? > >I can only posit cynical behavior on behalf of BOTH parties to >maintain their own strongholds at the expense of fairness. > >I had thought that after winning the popular vote but losing the >election, that at least the dems would push for some changes, but they >seem content with the status quo, and that puzzles me a bit. > >Personally, I'd love to see the whole electoral college system flushed >and have the popular vote decide things. �But I do understand the >concerns that residents of the small pop states have that they'd be >entirely ignored if that was the case A direct election would not disenfranchize voters in small states. It would enfranchize the rest of us. Small states get their protection from the fact that each state has only two Senators and from the fact that their congressional districts are more likely to be unified than in large states where many politically disparate groups exist.
The only person every american votes for is the President of the United States. All of our votes should count the same. >But it seems to me that the biggest problem isn't so much the EC >itself, so much as the "winner takes all" setup that awards all the >electoral votes to the state pop vote winner so that that the winner >gets all the electoral votes whether he wins by a 99% margin or a 50 >vote margin. �That just seems unnecessary and wrong to me. �It would >be very easy to allocate the electoral votes directly proportional to >the pop vote, or give each district one electoral vote, with the 2 >other EC votes going to the overall pop vote winner. > >> ... Lastly, while there is an initiative >> on the ballot to split Colorado's EV's, it is nearly inconceivable that >> Colorado would choose to commit electoral suicide in this way - and that's >> probably more said about that than it is worth. > >You say "electoral suicide", I say "democracy". �:-) �That measure >could conceivably give up to 50% of the CO voters some impact on the >election that would otherwise be written off. �Why can't (or >shouldn't) every state do this? > >-bryon >_______________________________________________ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
