RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] the electoral college

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Spurling, Shannon wrote:

> 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.

"Every thing equal" -- every state equal, right?  So California with about 
36 million and Wyoming with 1/2 million, start out with the same 
representation and that is considered OK.  California has 72 times as many 
people as does Wyoming, but Wyoming gets one representative and California 
gets 53 representatives, not 72.

If we change the electoral system, we will not "ignore whole areas of your 
population" -- where do you get that idea?  Wyoming would still have 72 
times as many senators relative to California as they deserve.  You say 
that a change will "lead to serious issues between Rural and urban areas," 
but I say it would correct the unfairness that now exists.  A Wyoming 
voter has much more power per vote than a California voter.  Why is that? 
It is not fair and a change in the electoral college would undo as many 
issues as it would create.

One good reason to eliminate the electoral college:  It would remove some 
of the incentive to cheat.  As it stands, one state can determine the 
outcome and because of polling, this can be determined in advance.  This 
leads to massive amounts of attention and money moving into that state in 
an effort to alter the outcome of the election.  It could also lead to 
election fraud in that state.  Wouldn't it be nice if all of us counted 
the same, even if we lived in a state where we were a minority?

As it stands, a Republican living in Massachusetts might as well not 
bother to cast a vote for Bush because he knows he will lose.  But, if the 
electoral college were gone and we were relying entirely on the popular 
vote, that Republican's vote would count just as much in Massachusetts as 
it would anywhere else.

Do we really want a system where Democrats in government might want to 
encourage more Democrats to move to a "purple" state so that it will 
become "blue?"  Or where Republicans were similarly motivated?

There are many, many reasons to do away with the current electoral system.

Mike

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