RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] the electoral college

["Spurling, Shannon" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Well, the reason they did it this way was to start with every thing
equal, and then weight these by population. I'm not sure it's a bad
idea. I think it's a catch 22. Either you devalue the votes of some
people, or you ignore whole areas of your population who will then lack
any appreciable representation. Elimination of the electoral college
could lead to serious issues between Rural and urban areas.

S-

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMAIL:PROTECTED [mailto:discussion-
> EMAIL:PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Miller
> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 9:56 AM
> To: MLUG Off-Topic Discussion
> Subject: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] the electoral college
> 
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Jonathan King wrote:
> 
> > There is no principled reason why somebody from Wyoming should have
> > substantially more voting power for president than you have in
> > California or than I have in Missouri.
> 
> So the number of electors for a state equals the number of senators
> (always 2) plus the number of representatives (at least 1).  If we
could
> just drop the 2 for senators from the number, that would be a big
> improvement.  Wikipedia has a nice entry and some interesting
suggestions
> on how to improve things (e.g., Arthur Schlesinger's idea):
> 
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Abolishing_the_non-
> proportional_electors_.28.22drop_two.22.29
> 
> In addition to dropping the 2-per-state for senators, Schlesinger
> recommends adding 100 for whoever wins the popular vote.
> 
> Mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion


_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion