>I can't see that there's much difference between allowing a >minority to exercise power against the popular will on the >one hand, and giving them the veto on the other.
I'm taking a lemon and trying to make lemonade. The rule of equal representation in the Senate for every state is fixed. The Constitution says that it can only be changed with the unanimous consent of the states (it's the only type of amendment that requires more than 3/4 of the states). Conversely, the EC can be eliminated if 3/4 of the states agree. So, since we're stuck with this rather undemocratic institution, let's at least find a silver lining if we can. Conversely, the EC would be much easier to repeal, so I'm drawing a distinction for why it's worse. Alex Small
