Well Florida did it again

[SensualCealy]

The purpose of the Primaries is help each political party to choose it's candidates for President and Vice-President. Unlike the parlimentary system, our executive branch (The President) is elected separately from the house of representatives (Parliment, if you will) and the Senate. The House of Representatives and the Senate together are called "Congress".

This occasionally results in the majority in Congress and the President being from different political parties...... This is the situation now.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach vis a vis a Parlimentary system..... but such is life....

-KC

That helps A LOT! I didn't realize that the majority in Congress can be different parties that the President. The leader of the majority in the Parlimentary system is the President, the party votes on who they want to represent them as Prime Minister-then they have the vote on what party to get into office.

Very interesting some days on here!
C

 

[keeblercrumb]

That helps A LOT! I didn't realize that the majority in Congress can be different parties that the President. The leader of the majority in the Parlimentary system is the President, the party votes on who they want to represent them as Prime Minister-then they have the vote on what party to get into office.

Very interesting some days on here!
C

Our weather is warmer too.



-KC

 

[Weird Harold]

Exactly... but that IS the way it works now. So if your issue is to insure that the "little" states have a larger voice in the election, you would be far better off with a true direct vote!

Nope, even with the flaws in the actual selection process for Electors -- which is strictly a state decision rather than a federal requirement -- and the dominance of the big states, it is in fact the little "Red States" that have prevailed in the last two presidential elections and prevailed only because their cumulative "territorial votes outvoted the Big States' populous votes.

As Box pointed out, the 2000 census shows California with a population of 36,553,215 and 55 Elctoral college votes.

According to the chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population It would take all thirteen of the least populous states (including the district of Coumbia) plus two of the five next most populace to offset just California in the Electoral College.

On the other hand, assuming votes split by the same percentages for and against, it would take the 21 least populaous states to offset California in a strictly popular vote. (or 42 of 51 voting entitities to offset the popular vote of the nine most populous states.)


Which method provides the small states (which provide food and raw material to most of the big states) with a more equal partnership in the Union.

And that is really the whole point -- the President is elected to be the leader of ALL fifty States (and the District of Columbia,) not the President of the Nine Most Populous States.

The Winner-Take-All convention doesn't improve the imablance by much since it would still only take the twelve most populous states to override the majority of States' interests in the Electoral college.

AS for whether the President shoul dbe elected by the people or by the states, the 12th ammendment makes it fairly clear to me whichway the constitution leans:

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; ...
...
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. ...​

Note: the 12th ammendment changed the process for electing the vice-president and did not alter the procedures for the Electoral College vote or the apportionment of votes or quorum requirements for a House election.

It is fairly evident that the framers saw the election of the President as a matter for "equal partners" in "a Confederation of Co-equal States" and the final tie breaker is the number of States and not the number of people who voted for him(/her/it.)

 

[sr71plt]

All political scheming aside, for citizens to be fully equal in voting, there should be one full-count, unweighted vote for each qualified citizen. When you get into small state-big state discusssions, you are watering down full equality of access in the interest of maneuvering to get more than your share of something.

The voting system that exists in the United States today is only that way because political compromises had to be made to get all states involved to play.

Was necessary/expedient then--and might still be necessary/expedient now--but it can't support an argument that it serves full equality of the individual qualified citizen in voting.

 

[Weird Harold]

Was necessary/expedient then--and might still be necessary/expedient now--but it can't support an argument that it serves full equality of the individual qualified citizen in voting.

I don't believe I've argued that the Electoral College does, or was ever intended to, provide an equal voice to individual citizens -- it is intended, and does, treat the States to a greater measure of equality.

It may have originally been "a political compromise to get all of the states to play" but it addresses specific concerns raised by small/frontier states about being outvoted by more populous states -- concerns which were one of the root causes of the Civil War and concerns that are even more of a "concern" to the Small States because the population differential just keeps getting bigger.

The Presidential election process never has been and was never intended to be a popular contest for individual citizens. The Founding Fathers put buffers between individual voters and the workings of government in every case where they gave any voice to individual voters at all.

I don't deny that a strictly popular vote nation-wide election would give each citizen of the united states and equal voice in electing the president -- What I'm arguing is that for very good (and still valid) reasons, the Founding Fathers chose to let the States elect the President and NOT the individual citizens of the USA and they did it such a way that the individual citizen's do not even have to be consulted -- save by whatever mechanism they elect their state executive and legislature.

The governent of the US is designed around the principle that the individual citizen exercises the franchise is choosing State officials and those State officials handle all interaction with the federal government. The Electoral College is just one more manifestation of principle that the federal government governs the state governments and not the states' citizens.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't believe I've argued that the Electoral College does, or was ever intended to, provide an equal voice to individual citizens -- it is intended, and does, treat the States to a greater measure of equality.

It may have originally been "a political compromise to get all of the states to play" but it addresses specific concerns raised by small/frontier states about being outvoted by more populous states -- concerns which were one of the root causes of the Civil War and concerns that are even more of a "concern" to the Small States because the population differential just keeps getting bigger.

The Presidential election process never has been and was never intended to be a popular contest for individual citizens. The Founding Fathers put buffers between individual voters and the workings of government in every case where they gave any voice to individual voters at all.

I don't deny that a strictly popular vote nation-wide election would give each citizen of the united states and equal voice in electing the president -- What I'm arguing is that for very good (and still valid) reasons, the Founding Fathers chose to let the States elect the President and NOT the individual citizens of the USA and they did it such a way that the individual citizen's do not even have to be consulted -- save by whatever mechanism they elect their state executive and legislature.

The governent of the US is designed around the principle that the individual citizen exercises the franchise is choosing State officials and those State officials handle all interaction with the federal government. The Electoral College is just one more manifestation of principle that the federal government governs the state governments and not the states' citizens.

I understand the history of it (and, I think, indicated that I did in my post). I think we put the emphasis on the States to bed with the Civil War, when some states tried to exercise their constitutional rights to withdraw and were shown that a national system had emerged from what the Founding Fathers had to do to get something going. And I think we've developed and matured to where the one qualified voter, one equal vote in the national presidential election is overdue and will be sauntering along one of these days. So, while understanding the historical "whys," I don't put any energy to slowing down evolution in this regard.

 

[sr71plt]

Incidentally, Larry Sabato, a major political process TV commentator, has a new book out called A More Perfect Constitution and, through a think tank he chairs, has started setting up conferences around the country for lawmakers and constitutional experts (one was held in Washington, D.C., in December for U.S. senators and congressmen). One of the 23 key changes he proposes for the Constitution is to get rid of the Electoral College. As I noted on a thread somewhere earlier, the State of Maryland has already started a formal process to repeal the Electoral College. So, chinks are starting to fall out the plaster on this.

 

[rgraham666]

I was reading a column by Paul Krugman today. He point's out that 16% of the U.S. population elects half of the Senate.

At any rate, in my opinion, the point is moot. It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

The fact is that a large portion of America doesn't really believe in democracy. Only half vote for President, a lot less than that for other positions. The people they elect really don't believe in democracy since most of them are there only for the money and the power.

Until that changes, all the tweaking of the system won't accomplish a thing.

 

[sr71plt]

I was reading a column by Paul Krugman today. He point's out that 16% of the U.S. population elects half of the Senate.

At any rate, in my opinion, the point is moot. It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

The fact is that a large portion of America doesn't really believe in democracy. Only half vote for President, a lot less than that for other positions. The people they elect really don't believe in democracy since most of them are there only for the money and the power.

Until that changes, all the tweaking of the system won't accomplish a thing.

Sort of a chicken and egg thing, isn't it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I was reading a column by Paul Krugman today. He point's out that 16% of the U.S. population elects half of the Senate.

At any rate, in my opinion, the point is moot. It's a poor workman who blames his tools.

The fact is that a large portion of America doesn't really believe in democracy. Only half vote for President, a lot less than that for other positions. The people they elect really don't believe in democracy since most of them are there only for the money and the power.

Until that changes, all the tweaking of the system won't accomplish a thing.

It used to be worse. Until a century ago, the state legislatures elected the senators.

By the way, WH, TX and CA, the two biggest states in population, provide quite a lot of food and raw material to the nation.

 

[sr71plt]

It used to be worse. Until a century ago, the state legislatures elected the senators.

By the way, WH, TX and CA, the two biggest states in population, provide quite a lot of food and raw material to the nation.

Yep, Texas provided Bush the Lesser, and you can't get much rawer than that. (Sorry, couldn't resist. I've just come from a live Mark Russell peformance, and I'm feeling politically satirical.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I'll be surprised if retiring the Electoral College gets any traction. I suspect Democrats and Republicans know what scams and swindles and fraud they'd invite with direct election. Elections would never be over as each party discovered 'uncounted' votes.

 

[Weird Harold]

I understand the history of it (and, I think, indicated that I did in my post). I think we put the emphasis on the States to bed with the Civil War, when some states tried to exercise their constitutional rights to withdraw and were shown that a national system had emerged from what the Founding Fathers had to do to get something going. And I think we've developed and matured to where the one qualified voter, one equal vote in the national presidential election is overdue and will be sauntering along one of these days. So, while understanding the historical "whys," I don't put any energy to slowing down evolution in this regard.

AS I understand it, the ONLY state that ever had a "constitutional right" to withdraw from the Union is Texas and that was more a clause in the Annexation Act. (and it may have lost that in its re-admission to the Union after the Civl War.)

The fly in the ointment for getting rid of the Electoral College is not in passing the ammendment, it is convincing the states that lose influence (or whose voters will lose their 'voice') have to ratify the ammendment and I can't see that happening -- because over half of the states would lose 20% or more of their influence in presidential elections; more than enough to block ratification.

FWIW, I don't think of changing the essential nature of the Presidency from "CEO" to "Most Popular Politician" is evolution, I think it's closer to devolution.

You consider the Electoral College Archaic, but I consider it an essential component of the design of the gopvernment created by the Constitution -- a reminder to prospective presidents that there are people in the US who don't live in huge urban centers and that they are running for the leadership of fifty individual States regardless of where the urban centers happen to be located.

Luckily for us "small states" The Electoral College isn't going away in the foreseeable future.

On a side note, I think the number of senators (and territorial votes) should be doubled. The balance between Territorial Representation and Populace Representation has gotten way out of whack because the nine most populaous states have grown far beyond population levels that were conceivable in the 18th century.

IIRC, the number of voters per representative has been adjusted upward three times to control the bloating of the House of Representatives (and to maintain the relative voices of the "small states" in the House. I don't know of any adjustments specifically aimed at the Electoral College.) I can't believe that the Founding Fathers expected the current imbalance of 39/12; I think they were aiming for something closer to 60/40% where it would, on average require a coalition of three small states to offset two large states.

That is a Constitutional Ammendment that just might get passed AND ratified -- in spite of the howls of outrage from the urban population centers -- because there are more states that would gain than would lose; a 60% increase in total representation in DC for the seven smallest States but only a 3% increase for California. (it wouldn't actually change the ratios in the House of Representatives or the Senate but it would increase the total voice in DC.) Where it would have the most effect is to get the small states listened to when formulating campaign platforms. because they'd once again the the (more) equal partners in the confederation that the founders intended.

 

[Weird Harold]

It used to be worse. Until a century ago, the state legislatures elected the senators.

By the way, WH, TX and CA, the two biggest states in population, provide quite a lot of food and raw material to the nation.

Which is why I said "raw materials to MOST of the Big States."

I'm well aware that Texas is one of the "big states" by virtue of being the "biggest" of the lower 48 and can support a huge population out without paving farms and ranches to build malls and factories. It's also still a major oil supplier to the rest of the country.

California is still a "farm state" and a "manufacturing state" -- but that's only two of the Big twleve; the twelve states that control the Electoral College because if they all vote the same way, no other state's votes count.

With a popular vote, they become the top two of the "Big Nine" and three additional states get disenfranchised if the top nine vote in concert.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Without consulting a mnap or history book, how many can name the original 13? I surprised myself just now by doing it.



































NH, MA, CT, RI, NY, PA. MD, NJ, DE, VA, NC, SC, GA.

 

[Weird Harold]

Without consulting a mnap or history book, how many can name the original 13? I surprised myself just now by doing it.

...

I'm getting old and suffer from CRS, so I can only manage about four even after looking at your summary.

Interestingly, Delaware was one of the states pushing for more territorial representation when the Constitution was framed and STILL only has three Electoral votes.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm getting old and suffer from CRS, so I can only manage about four even after looking at your summary.

Interestingly, Delaware was one of the states pushing for more territorial representation when the Constitution was framed and STILL only has three Electoral votes.

I think I'm older than you. Idon't remember my age when Disneyland opened, but it was about 11.

I was actually mistaken, but I have changed the list. Vermont was not one of the original states; they were the 14th one. I missed Maryland, which seems odd, because that is one I should have gotten.

Delaware is a very small state, in area and population but, at the time the Constitution was signed, they weren't all that small in population.

 

[Weird Harold]

I think I'm older than you. Idon't remember my age when Disneyland opened, but it was about 11.

I was actually mistaken, but I have changed the list. Vermont was not one of the original states; they were the 14th one. I missed Maryland, which seems odd, because that is one I should have gotten.

Delaware is a very small state, in area and population but, at the time the Constitution was signed, they weren't all that small in population.

Disneyland opened July 17th 1955

The point was that Delaware had one representative and two senators (three electoral votes) then and still has the same number now. (Just out of curiosity, I googled "First US Congress" and discovered the roster of the 1789 Congressiona session -- Delaware and Rhode Island were the only states with just one Representative in the House but Rhode Island now has two, while Delaware still has only one.

That first Congress has 26 Senators and 65 Representatives for a total of 91 Electors in the First Electoral College. That largest state had 12 votes and the two smallest had 3 for a proportional voice ratio of 3:12 (0.250) from smallest to largest
The 2004 Electoral College had over 300 Electors and the ratios of Smallest to Largest was 3:55 (0.055.) Every state has lost proportional influence in congress and in the Electoral college with every state added to the Union, but only Delaware has continually lost it's proportional voice to population expansion in the other original thirteen as well as expansion of the Union.

I'd hate to see Delaware's voice in the electoral college reduced to 1:53 (0.019) of the largest voice in the Electoral College because California's interest are NOT Delware's interests (nor are Texas', New York's, New Jersey's or any of the other top nine states.

In that first congress/electoral college, Delaware had 3/8ths of New Yorks' representation, 3/10ths of Pennsylvania's and 3/12ths of Virginia's; today, the ratios are 3/31sts, 3/21sts, and 3/15ths respectively.

I think it's time to restore some of those original proportions to give the small states back a little of there original "voice" in the government of the US -- and not just in the Electoral College, although that's a big part of the imbalance.

I don't think that the founding fathers ever envisioned a situation where a single state held nearly 70 times the population of the smallest, or one that could match half of forty-nine other states popular vote for popular vote, or that 10% of the states would have 36% of the population. They did however envision that the populous urban states would ignore the less populous rural states to the detriment of the entire country.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Nope, even with the flaws in the actual selection process for Electors -- which is strictly a state decision rather than a federal requirement -- and the dominance of the big states, it is in fact the little "Red States" that have prevailed in the last two presidential elections and prevailed only because their cumulative "territorial votes outvoted the Big States' populous votes.

As Box pointed out, the 2000 census shows California with a population of 36,553,215 and 55 Elctoral college votes.

Harold.... I have the utmost respect for your opinions and the rationality of your postings... but I just think you are missing something here.

All your number crunching keeps missing the salient point. While Californina may have a 36,553,215 polulation, with a direct vote, the only number that means anything is the margin of victory... The loser still gets ALL the votes of those who voted for them... currently they effectively get NONE.

Again... win by a large margin in the small states and lose by a narrow margin in a large state... you WIN! Any candidate who would igonore this and campaign only in New York, Florida, California and Texas..... stands the very real chance of losing the election.... unlike the situation today.

-KC

 

[Boxlicker101]

Disneyland opened July 17th 1955

The point was that Delaware had one representative and two senators (three electoral votes) then and still has the same number now. (Just out of curiosity, I googled "First US Congress" and discovered the roster of the 1789 Congressiona session -- Delaware and Rhode Island were the only states with just one Representative in the House but Rhode Island now has two, while Delaware still has only one.

That first Congress has 26 Senators and 65 Representatives for a total of 91 Electors in the First Electoral College. That largest state had 12 votes and the two smallest had 3 for a proportional voice ratio of 3:12 (0.250) from smallest to largest
The 2004 Electoral College had over 300 Electors and the ratios of Smallest to Largest was 3:55 (0.055.) Every state has lost proportional influence in congress and in the Electoral college with every state added to the Union, but only Delaware has continually lost it's proportional voice to population expansion in the other original thirteen as well as expansion of the Union.

I'd hate to see Delaware's voice in the electoral college reduced to 1:53 (0.019) of the largest voice in the Electoral College because California's interest are NOT Delware's interests (nor are Texas', New York's, New Jersey's or any of the other top nine states.

In that first congress/electoral college, Delaware had 3/8ths of New Yorks' representation, 3/10ths of Pennsylvania's and 3/12ths of Virginia's; today, the ratios are 3/31sts, 3/21sts, and 3/15ths respectively.

I think it's time to restore some of those original proportions to give the small states back a little of there original "voice" in the government of the US -- and not just in the Electoral College, although that's a big part of the imbalance.

I don't think that the founding fathers ever envisioned a situation where a single state held nearly 70 times the population of the smallest, or one that could match half of forty-nine other states popular vote for popular vote, or that 10% of the states would have 36% of the population. They did however envision that the populous urban states would ignore the less populous rural states to the detriment of the entire country.

Representation based mostly on population. Why should the vote of a person in DE carry more weight than the vote of a person in CA or TX orNY or OH of FL?

 

[keeblercrumb]

Representation based mostly on population. Why should the vote of a person in DE carry more weight than a the vote of a person in CA or TX orNY or OH of FL?

Welll..... you put it that way... I vote in Delaware so I am in all in favor of us Delaweenies getting more for our vote.... being the clever little buggers we are.... Who else has no sales tax but a large toll on our 20 miles of I-95 which we rarely use? Which New Yorkers, etc.. pay for.... Cool huh?

We deserve it!! Besides... we ARE the First State.

-KC

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold.... I have the utmost respect for your opinions and the rationality of your postings... but I just think you are missing something here.

All your number crunching keeps missing the salient point. While Californina may have a 36,553,215 polulation, with a direct vote, the only number that means anything is the margin of victory... The loser still gets ALL the votes of those who voted for them... currently they effectively get NONE.

Depending on how you figure "Margin of Victory" -- a 51/49 split of the popular vote is a (potenial) margin of victory of 731,044 votes; more than the total possible vote in any one of the four smallest states or the District of Columbia.

ETA: the absolute numbers don't matter, it is the proportions that matter. A one percent swing in votes is the same proportion difference between A Big State and a Small State and one percent of a big states franchise is 150-200 percent of a small state's franchise -- in other words a skin-of-the-teeth win in California would require an entire small state's total franchise to vote unanimously to offset it; or 20-some small states to vote the opposite way by the same percentage.

Representation based mostly on population. Why should the vote of a person in DE carry more weight than a the vote of a person in CA or TX orNY or OH of FL?

Box, you and KC are both missing the point that it is NOT the citizens who elect the President, it is the STATES who elect the President. The constitution allocates Electors to the STATES. In part the allocation is based on population, but the allocationis NOT to the citizens of the several states, it is to the States -- specifically to the State legislatures.

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President
...
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Constitution says nothing about the states holding a general election to instruct the electors or binding thelectors to vote in a specific manner because those are STATE issues and a matter for the citizens of each State to deal with through their State Legislature.

sr71plt asserts that this is an archaic and undemocratic method, but I say it is a deliberate insulation of the Presidential Election from the vagaries of popular opinion.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, you and KC are both missing the point that it is NOT the citizens who elect the President, it is the STATES who elect the President. The constitution allocates Electors to the STATES. In part the allocation is based on population, but the allocationis NOT to the citizens of the several states, it is to the States -- specifically to the State legislatures.



The Constitution says nothing about the states holding a general election to instruct the electors or binding thelectors to vote in a specific manner because those are STATE issues and a matter for the citizens of each State to deal with through their State Legislature.

sr71plt asserts that this is an archaic and undemocratic method, but I say it is a deliberate insulation of the Presidential Election from the vagaries of popular opinion.

I think that is what it was intended to be. And, I think it should be changed to a direct vote. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to do it, and that's what I am advocating.

Currently, people don't campaign in CA. Both the parties figure the Dems have it locked up, so what's the point. Under direct election, all candidates would have to campaign hard everywhere. Actually, that's not such a good thing. I'm already tired of political ads for the election on Tuesday.

 

[Weird Harold]

I think that is what it was intended to be. And, I think it should be changed to a direct vote. It would take an amendment to the Constitution to do it, and that's what I am advocating.

You know, you live in THE most populous state, so I'm not surprised that you don't see the threat that those of us in the smaller states see. There's no danger that your backyard will be chosen (over more geologically stable locations in states wtih more votes) as the nuclear waste dump. There's little concern that wolves will be reintroduced into the midst of your livestock based economy over your protests.

I'm perfectly happy with the slim protection the small states have from "A Tyranny of the Masses" and shudder at the thought of California's "citizens propositions" becoming extended to the National government where California would have the sheer mass to impose "bread and circuses" on the entire country.

Under direct election, all candidates would have to campaign hard everywhere. ...

No, they wouldn't have to campaign anywhere except the nine most populous States -- California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan,, and New Jersey -- because those nine States total 144,088,584/281,421,906 (51.2%) of the US population. Add, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Washington and you have 16 states with 66% of the population. Given any close approximation of a consistent nationwide split, those sixteen states totally control the outcome of any national ballot.

Every percentage point a politican can gain in California, or Texas polls reduces the number of small states they have to campaign in.
The necessary shift gets bigger as each small state is "erased" from campaign platforms and itineraries, 'cause one percentage point shift in California only offsets the entire populations of six states. The second and third percentage points only wipe out three states each for a mere twelve entire states offset by a near dead-heat 51.5/48.5% margin in California (assuming the same percentage of the population is elgible and votes)

Currently, people don't campaign in CA. Both the parties figure the Dems have it locked up, so what's the point. ...

If California is generally conceded to the Democrats, why on earth would any sane Small (Red) Stater want to give California (or New York) any greater voice in presidential elections? Texas is generally more sympathetic to small State concerns, but it's still not a style of State Government I'd like to see the federal government morphed into.

If I wanted to live with California, Texas, or New York's taxation policies, I would have moved to one of those states when I retired -- instead of moving to a "small state" that added about $100 million to its tax base today thanks to Caifornians, Texans, and New Yorkers (and others) who stopped by to place Superbowl bets on their way to Phoenix. (A tax advantage that the Californa, Texas and New York dominated Congress keeps trying to outlaw, BTW -- luckily, one of the top nine is New Jersey which opposes anti-gambling measures almost as stridently as Nevada does.)

The Electoral College exists not to give Small States more influence, but to limit the "tyranny of the masses" of the Big States.

 

[keeblercrumb]

)

The Electoral College exists not to give Small States more influence, but to limit the "tyranny of the masses" of the Big States.

But damn Harold, in reality it DOES not!!! Because of the "winner takes all" factor, currently the Large States have a much bigger influence.... A direct election would minimize their impact, and, presumably, so would an electoral college with pro-rated (or district) electors...... The difference is that the Large State vs. Small State argument inherent in the latter amendment is so obtuse, you will never get anybody to vote for it. One man, one vote seems so obviously fair, that a “direct vote” amendment would pass, I hope.

I do not particularly disagree with your analysis of the constitutional debates 230 years ago.... but so what? “Big vs. small”/ “Industrial vs. Agrarian” was a much bigger issue then... but so was whether slaves should be counted in apportioning the House and electors.... In other words… archaic.

The system, as it is now constructed, is both biased in favoring the big states, and it is hopelessly convoluted in its practice. You think the 2000 "hanging chad" election was an embarrassment (if not, you should).... the electoral college is an aging time bomb just waiting to blow up what little integrity the system now has.

Tic Toc.

-KC