"rw" wrote in message
m...

I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of
the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the
President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who
he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in
Wyoming compared to a person in California.

the validity of the above statement -
Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential
voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush
resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush).

While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an
office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population
at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick
their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a
winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example)
apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their
state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would
likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were
granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having
an election for President within their state, choose the electors
themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes.
They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they
could even choose to do it by random drawing.)

Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one
even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system
need to be made state by state.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email