I'm a fan of the electoral college

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

I've got two reasons, one longstanding and one pertaining to this particular election.

My longstanding reason is the importance it gives to small population states, where I have spent the greater part of my life. If the presidency is decided by simple popular vote, who will care about Montana, or even Iowa (where my mother lives). Maryland, where I live now, is far and away the most populous state I've ever lived in.

The candidates woud just spend about all of their efforts in the "major media markets."

The second reason has to do with the razor-thin margin in the popular vote count in this last election. We are now facing a recount situation in Florida. If simple popular vote decided it, I would think there would be a recount situation required in every state of the union practically. Chew on that, people.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), November 10, 2000


When the Constitution was written, there were several compromises included that balanced the interests of the small-population states and the large-population states. The apportionment of electoral votes is one of those. Small(-population) states get more electoral votes per capita than large states, so, as you point out, candidates have to pay more attention to them than they would under a simple popular vote system.

I disagree with your second reason. I don't think a popular vote system would lead to more recounts than our electoral system. I think it would be just the opposite -- if a presidential candidate led (or trailed) by, say, 300,000 popular votes nationally, why would s/he care to request a recount if it would probably make only a 2,000-vote difference? After all, it wouldn't matter who won in a particular state -- only the national total would matter.

Only when that 2,000 votes would make a difference in who won a state's electoral vote would the candidate care much.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

To No Spam:

I just read where Hillary disagrees with me, & wants to do away with the EC.

Need I say more?

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), November 10, 2000.


>Need I say more?

Well, if you want to be clearly understood, yes.

Hillary's is one of many opinions.

-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

"Need I say more?"

Yes, please explain how a man can be dumber than a woman.

-- (that's@highly.unusual), November 10, 2000.

Yes, please explain how a man can be dumber than a woman.

In your case it certainly seems to apply.

-- Sexist (Pig@Dufuss.com), November 10, 2000.

Hello, Mister Errington,

I believe that the US Constitution should be enforced and not weakened by partisan attacks.

The electoral college has its dutiful placement in American history -- past, present and future.

However, this will not stop THE GORE from engaging in Slick Willie style attacks.

His puppets have arrogantly declared that the battle has just begun...

Remember Gettysburg?

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), November 10, 2000.

To Sexist Pig:

OK, I just gave Hillary the needle. If you don't like it, sue me.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), November 10, 2000.

Apologies to sexist pig. My remark should have been addressed to "that's highly unusual."

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), November 10, 2000.

Yes, please explain how a man can be dumber than a woman.

-- (that's@highly.unusual),

Thats easy, just ask any woman. :-)

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), November 10, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ