Frank Schmidt wrote: > Count Maru wrote: >> Erik Reuter wrote: >>> The electors themselves are mostly irrelevant >>> (although they could conceivably suprise someday) >>> but the Electoral College itself does have some >>> interesting properties as compared to a straight >>> majority vote: >>> >>> From the Archive: Math Against Tyranny >>> By Will Hively >>> September 30, 2004 >> >> I have a quibble with the article. It doesn't address >> the way low population states are spotted (overall) a >> few extra electors as compared with high population >> states. This intentionally skews the overall number >> of electors and the allotment of electors for dense >> population areas. > > This 'skewing' was decided by the Founding Fathers. It > was a compromise between a vote of the people and a > vote of the states. In my proposal I have the president > directly elected by the people, but I also have some > compensation for the (small) states (House+Primaries).
Urk.......you mistake what I was talking about. Several decades ago congress set a limit to the number of representatives sent to congress. The effect this has today is that in my state a representative has 500,000 to 600,00 constituents while in the least populous states a representative has a scotch over 400,000 constituents. This gives an inordinate amount of power to those in less populous states and I resent that people in the hinterlands get better representation everyday that I do. This would be addressed by returning to the system where every representative had an equal number of constituents. We would gain a crapload of reps, but then democracy isn't free is it?<G> > > I have some other problems with the article. Natapoff > seemes to want to reach a conclusion that the Electoral > College was good for the US, and he arrived there. He > poses a situation where 51% vote for one side and 49% > for the other, and but many of the 51% are concentrated > in one state, while the 49%, winning two states, would > win the election. He asserts the 51% are the bad side, > and does not take into account that it might be the > other way around. Pretty much the same way the war is justified in a sense. xponent I Supported The War For Humanitarian Reasons And Remember Feeling Alone Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
