From: Dave Sill <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>I like the Electoral College. The U.S. is not just a homogeneous
>pool of citizens, it's an agglomeration of the 50 states (plus
>D.C.), and the Electoral College guarantees that presidential
>candidates will have to court voters in many states. If the
>election was decided by the popular vote, many states would be
>left out since the candidates would, naturally, concentrate
>their campaigns on urban areas.
>If a candidate wins by the Electoral vote but loses the popular
>vote, it doesn't mean the Electoral College has failed, it means
>it's succeeded in balancing the power between urban and rural
Your's is the classic argument.
Did each candidate visit all 50 states (and territories)?
Did each candidate spend an equal amount of time in each state and
rural/urban areas or did they concentrate on high electoral count
In a state where you had a good idea of how things are going to
come out, why even bother going to the polls?
Without the electoral college the candidates might have to visit
everywhere, or risk losing the votes of those they didn't visit.
It might eliminate the extremely obnoxious press coverage on
election night where they were calling the election hours before
before polls had closed.
I personally would rather they NOT visit, they made a mess of
traffic here a number of times during their visits.
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:20 MDT