[at-l] My question about representation...

[bullard@northnet.org (Jim Bullard)]

At 05:08 PM 11/13/2002 -0600, Phil Heffington wrote:
>I've stayed out of the discussion about voting, but I do have a question
>regarding the electoral college discussion.
>
>I don't buy the argument that only a handful of states would elect a
>president if we didn't have the electoral college.  Seems to me like it is
>that way it is now with the college.  If we elected the president by
>popular vote, then my vote would count just as much as an individual's
>vote who lives in California, for instance.  As it is now, when the
>majority of voters in my state vote for a particular candidate, then it
>cancels out any representation I have at all by sending all our electoral
>votes for that one candidate.  That seems to imply that all of the people
>of my state voted for that candidate, even though only 50% plus one may have.

The idea was to prevent the large (high population) states from dictating
who became President by virtue of their larger number of voters.  The
Electoral College was thought to be a way to level the playing field for
smaller states.  It all arose out of the State's Rights movement.  Whether
all the Electors from a state go to the winning party in that state or they
are divided proportionally is left to the states.  I believe that most
opted for the 'winner takes all' approach.

>It seems that some people are arguing that voters should get
>disproportionate representation because of the amount of acreage that
>surrounds them, also.  That is the way we are represented in the Senate,
>having 2 Senators from each state, regardless of the population of that
>state.  To me, the arguments for the electoral college just do not stand up.

It absolutely does contradict the ideal of 'one man, one vote'.  Personally
I find it amusing that it is the 'winners' who gleefully remind us that
this is a Republic, not a democracy.  Despite that we, as a nation, present
ourselves as the world's leading democracy and when we turn our military
might against another nation it is always for the defense and furtherance
of democracy not republicanism.

>I'm not really expecting an answer from anyone on this, and I'm not
>convinced it has anything to do with the trail, so I'll leave it alone if
>nobody wants to carry it any further.

It has to do with the trail to the extent that in the midst of soft money,
hanging chads, gerrymandering, etc. we still manage somehow to elect
leaders who will support protection of the environment including the
National Trail System.  It is my opinion that the two most recent elections
failed in that regard.  You are free to disagree.

sAunTerer