|| posted on 6-1-2008 at 10:35
|One person, one vote, would be my preference.... with no reporting of any results until all polls have closed, including exit pols.
IIRC, Kennedy wasn't elected by popular vote, either.
I'm not really worried whether states get influence - I'd prefer people had influence, directly.
|| posted on 6-1-2008 at 09:35
|One man, one vote all on the same day would be less open to manipulation.
I read somewhere that the purpose of electoral colleges was, far from giving more power to smaller states, a way for the founding fathers to keep
power in the hands of the landed gentry. Is that not true then?
|| posted on 6-1-2008 at 01:40
|I would favor retaining the electoral college. It was designed to give states with small population at least a minimum weight in the total vote.
Even so, the less populous states don't get much attention. A few of our states have great concentrations of populations in several large cities.
If the president were elected purely on the popular vote, there would be a real pull toward running on policies that would favor the cities at the
expense of the agricultural and wilderness states.
|| posted on 6-1-2008 at 01:11
|In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote by over a half million votes, but lost the key state of Florida. Florida's 27 electoral college votes were
enough to propel George W. Bush into office after the ensuing (and very long) Supreme Court battle.
Is it time to re-examine the electoral college system in America?