On a more serious note, I’d like to point you towards an excellent editorial in The New York Times: “Abolish the Electoral College”
The Electoral College is a silly, historical vestige that has long outlived its purpose. I remain convinced that had Bush won the popular vote by half a million, yet lost the election, the Electoral College would have been quickly abolished.
They only complain once it doesnt work for them. :) I love it. The distinction you have to make here, is that we are a democratic republic, not a pure democracy. You want a pure democracy, change the rules and legislation to make one.
I\’m not sure how the Electoral College fits into any definition of \”democratic republic\” or \”representative democracy\” or whatever you meant. By a \”Republic\” we mean that we elect representatives to enact legislation on our behalf, rather than vote on everything by popular plebiscite. And every other legislator and executive in the nation — with the exception of the President — is elected directly. There is nothing inherently (small \”r\”) republican about the Electoral College.
But while we\’re on the subject of \”republic\” vs \”pure democracy\”, perhaps you and your Eyman-backing buddies should explore this issue further the next time you tout the initiative process as being more democratic.
The Electoral College System insures that even people in Nevada and Alaska have some voice in electing a president. In the 2000 election, 72% of all US Counties voted for Bush, yet without the EC system Gore would be president today . – Port Angeles, WA
I wrote one – but, your system didn\’t like it and wiped it out
Marv, I believe people should elect the President, not states or counties. Alaska and Nevada voters would still have a voice; their votes would count just as much as everybody elses. As it stands now, their votes count much more than mine… so why is that fair?
The notion that somehow the Electoral College keeps candidates from ignoring sparsely populated states is counter to reality. The current campaign is focused primarily on a half-dozen \”battleground\” states… Alaska is virtually ignored because it is solidly red. The electoral math distorts national politics into magnifying some narrow regional interests at the expense of others.
Besides, Alaskans still enjoy an enormous magnification of their political power by having the same number of senators as Californians. I think that is more than enough.
So, Why are the \”battleground\” states a battlegroud?
Because the are nearly evenly divided. They bring out
the best (and worst) in the candidates. But, in today\’s world the whole country sees and hears what is
going on there. Without our constituional system, the candidates would spend all their time in NYC, Chicago and LA. And, I don\’t believe those cities represent the American people. They vote dead people and illegal aliens.
Florida does not represent the American people either, but yet both candidates must pander to the peculiarities of local politics… hence our insane Cuban policy, for example.
I\’m sorry… I just can\’t see why somebody in Idaho should have more of say in who is President than I do.
please read the Constitution CLOSELY pay real good attention to Section II article I clause 2 and 3…..
Thank you for your post card. Your comments prove what I said at the end of my letter to the editor, where we are born and what religion we are taught determines our response to whatever may occur in our lives. If you were born in China, Japan or any other non-Christian place you would be an advocate of that particular religion.
My response to all religions is that they are preaching a doctrine that includes a belief in an after life which leads to suicide bombers and a willingness to suffer unnecessarily in this world with a false promise of a better life later. There is no proof that there is an afterlife, only our desire for it which stems from our ability to fantasize and dream up things which are not true. But once we are indoctrinated with such beliefs it is virtually impossible to convince a “believer” that he is wrong. So it is impossible to have a meaningful discourse with one so opinionated. Christ was a good man, there is no doubting about that, but there are too many things about him which fly in the face of reality. It is interesting to note that during the time he was living there were many well educated people writing and leaving evidence of their presence. Surely were Christ so important a person he would have left some writings as anyone of significance had to have some education. He is said to have disputed with priests in the temple as a child, which indicates he had some advanced education and could read and write. With his message coming from god and knowing everything, why did he not leave something less than what others wrote about him? It seems to me that if he knew so much, was he not selfish in sharing less than a few miracles? Clint Jones
Re; Electoral college.
We tend to overlook the fact that we often live in more than one state during our habitation on this earth. Why should any state have greater say in the election of a president that is supposed to represent the whole country, not just a few states? This is blatantly unfair since we all pay income taxes to one agency, yet that money is spent disproportionately among the states.
Are we to assume that electing a governor withing the confines of the power of the office of governor one vote per person, we are not allowed to use the same process for a president by electing within the confines of the country?