"Mike McGuire" wrote in message
link.net...
rw wrote:

In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes,
but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count.

In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes,
but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be
the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes.

Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system?

This canard seems to come up every presidential election. It is in the
interest of the more populous states to get rid of the electoral college
but against the interest of the less populous states. To get rid of it
requires a constitutional amendment. To pass it requires 38 states to vote
for it. If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine most
populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That leaves 41
in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of whom only
13 need to see it that way.

Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral
College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the
electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With
or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more
influence becasue there are more people voting.

The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is
eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of
the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that
fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If
it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it
subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does.

Wolfgang

It ain't going happen.