I've already shot myself in the foot in a religious discussion this week, so
what the heck, I'll jump in on this one.
(Don't try this at home kids, you'll just look stoopid. I'm an amateur.)

wrote in message

snip

If we want the president to represent the states - the original intent
of the framers - then the electoral college is fine. There are those
of us who believe that politicians should serve the people.
Otherwise, why go through the sham of a popular election?

I understand both the role of the electoral college and the reasons
why it may not be the best solution for America today. We are much
more diverse than the America of 1787 when the constitution was
penned. Back then, the only voters were white male landholders. The
country was agrarian with little of the industry we have today. The
country was small.


I think it is the best solution still. Sure, today's thinking is that if YOU
don't like something, bring a lawsuit and force 1,000 other people to do
things YOUR way. I believe the original intent was to give people places to
move to where like-minded individuals live/work/play.
You don't like the Bible-belt? Move to Kalifornia, Rhode Island, etc.
With the Electoral College, even states with smaller populations still can
yield a big stick in close elections and force the federal candidates to at
least show some respect for the over-all "theme" of a state.

snip

No, you do not have to vote for one of them even though, for now, they
have a disproportionate advantage. Their formation of the Commission
on Presidential Debates virtually guaranteed that for the moment they
can marginalize the other candidates as their rules for who can
participate lock out other candidates where the old League of Women
Voters format allowed other candidates to participate. And as more
people vote for the other parties, two things happen. One is that the
parties begin to look at the issues the third parties raise and
assimilate some of them. The other is that they circle the wagons.
Indeed, the copd is a direct reaction to the success of Ross Perot and
Ralph Nader in getting significant numbers of votes that, while not
winning the elections, certainly altered the outcomes. It is doubtful
that Bill Clinton could have won either election without Perot nor
that Bush could have won without Nader. Candidates like Howard Dean
show how much effect Nader had on the Democrats and by the same token
Bush's 'kinder, gentler conservative' rap was a nod towards Perot's
politics.

I would rather elect someone closer to my point of view and then swamp the
elected officials with emails about how I want the country to be run. Until
a Ronald Reagan comes from the ranks of the libertarian party, voting for
anyone other than a republican means you help someone far outside your
political leanings get elected. I say work for change from within. (If
you're a democrat, substitute accordingly. ;p)

snip


The system by which we run the popular vote is entirely a product of
the politians. This can and should be revised, whether or not the
electoral college is kept or changed. I think Colorado's proposed
amendment where they would apportion votes rather than be a winner
take all system is a good step.

But as a commentator pointed out, this would have essentially given colorado
1 electoral vote for the winner. Hence politically, it would have
marginalized itself.

The current system resulted in the
two 'big candidates' focusing their attention almost entirely on just
6 'battleground' states. If apportioned voting applied nation wide,
then the candidates would have to work more broadly than they did this
time. Those who claim a straight popular vote would over-empower the
urban centers need only look at the popular vote this year. The urban
centers did not determine the winner in either the popular or
electoral college vote.

If I recall correctly, only a couple of elections had electoral winners not
winning the popular vote, so really it seems there isn't a problem - unless
you happen to be one of the few losers or a supporter.

For myself, I prefer a system that gives the little guy at least a spitting
chance at influencing things. I'm not a big city person at heart and never
will be. If we go with the popular vote, then eventually all us river
boating****, red-neck country bumpkins will have a New York/ LA big city
government. Bound to happen sooner or later. I don't think I'd like that.

**** See, relates to boating!


Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

Man I sure tried though. Did destroy a few in the process!
Oh, nothing personal.