In your opinion there is no benefit. However the people in those states disagree.
In the past 4 elections only 1 has had a clear winner in the popular vote. Clinton received 43% in 1992, 48% in 1996. Bush and Gore both received 40% in 2000. Bush received 51% in the last election. Of course, if we went with a national popular vote, then the fed would actually have to standardize voting equipment across the country. As of right now the states are responsible for the electors. The "popular vote" isn't even a real number as far as elections are concerned. It is only tallied by the media. The federal government would have to set nationwide standards for electors, entire parts of the Constitution would have to be rewritten. > -----Original Message----- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The electoral college certainly does not help small states and there's > an argument to made that it hurts them. I've already given good > examples of this: Hawaii, Maine, North Dakota. There is simply NO > BENEFIT to the electoral college. > > There was when communication and travel were limited, but that time > ended about 50 years ago, and so now it's time to change the system. > > Further, it's possible that the EC can hurt small states by tossing > out their vote - it's possible to win the popular vote, but lose the > election. In this case a person's vote for the loser has been > effectively thrown out by the EC. > > It's an old, broken, useless system with no benefits and many drawbacks. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:204166 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
