On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 02:14:23 GMT, "Greg"
wrotf:


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.

The problem is that I am more concerned about the votes of people than
states. I am really unconcerned with what clout the 'state' has.
They are no longer the monolithic populations they were 200 years ago
and even then, only a small percentage of the people were represented
in any way.


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)

And if neither party is close to your beliefs? I see such huge
problems with both parties that I cannot in good conscience support
either.

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.

yes, but it would eliminate the marginalization of the orphan voters
in colorado and if adopted nationwide, it would end the focus on
'battleground states where in reality only a small number of states
really decide who is going to be president. 136,000 more votes in
ohio and Kerry would be president though he had less than a majority
and 3 million votes less than bush.


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.

The bigger problem is the focus on a few states, giving them massively
disproportionate power in the elections and conversely massively
disproportionate power when it comes to political agendas. The
electoral college would work much better if there were not 'winner
take all' apportionment of each state's electoral votes though my
basic feeling is that the focus on representing states rather than
voters puts the election in the wrong perspective for the politicians.

Is there a perfect, non-scammable way to elect the president?
Probably not, but this system is ripe for revision. It can be run
much better and it can be run so that more points of view can have a
chance to rise to the top.

For myself, I prefer a system that gives the little guy at least a spitting
chance at influencing things.

Then you should agree with me in my desire to have a system where the
individual counts more.

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.

Really? then why isn't Kerry the president now? - even with the solid
support of urban areas, he lost both the popular and electoral votes.

**** See, relates to boating!

Personally, I am hoping to be starting a circumnavigation before the
next presidential race - the kick off to an early retirement if I can
get the boat built before then.

Weebles Wobble
(but they don't fall down)

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

seemed a great nic for a sailor though