So that the smaller states have a voice? But the number of congressmen is roughly based on population isn't it? If so, I don't follow what you're trying to prove here.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

The Founders believed that a populist government would create a tyranny against the minority. So they set-up a system in which each state's individual power was equally balanced against every other state in the upper house while the more populous states would have greater power in the lower house. Since people are the source of wealth, that is why spending bills originate in the lower house.

The election of the presidency is through a compromise of the 2 houses of government in which the electors are mostly selected by the population of each state, moderated by the 2 electors each state is apportioned regardless of population.

Currently, the 2 major parties have devised a "winner-takes-all" system within each state (with a couple of exceptions). For example, Florida has 25 electors -- one for each congressional district and 2 for the senators. In 2005 all of the electors went to Bush.

Why should that be the case? Why not have each elector from each congressional district vote according to his district and the 2 senatorial electors vote their conscience?

And so forth with most of the remainder of the states.

The reason is that the 2 major parties recognized that true proportional representation would allow 3rd parties into government. They would lose control. The 2 major parties are all about power. Control is a manifestation of power.

B

Ah, I see. That's too bad though. I'd like to see more parties having meaningful power. I think you would too, wouldn't you?

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Oh yeah. More parties reduces the effectiveness and power of government. Compare say Italy with the USSR, China or Cambodia. It would be almost impossible for Italy to oppress it's people. In 1 party systems it's a matter of choice.

Not really hearing anything that changes my mind. I don't see the problem in popular vote, it works for every other election. My understanding (and this might way oversimplify matters) is that the Electoral Collge system came about because in a large nation, BACK THEN, there would be too many candidates from different areas of the country to reach a national consensus on a president. The senators and congressmen would be more in tune with the issues, whereas the public at large would not, being the stay-at-hone ranchers, cowboys, farmers, etc that didn't have access to alot of national news.
I did like the step that Colorado took in the last election in that it is evidently legal for a state to divide up the Electorial College votes and delagete them in the ratio of the popular vote. In other words one party obtained 60% of the vote, then 60% of the votes went to those Electors, so sort of emulated the popular vote, but I still think for the Presidential Election there is no longer a valid reason not to have popular vote. It should be changed, NOW.
Gilly

__________________
Click here to see the items I have up for auction at EBay

Click here to see a photo album of my '62 Sprite Project Moneypit (Now Sold)

Here's what one of the founders said.

http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm

I have a problem with West Undershirt... Coming from the only state with West in the name I resent that remark. Would you like it if I called Wisconsin North Mosquito burg?

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

Only if you could spell it so it looks funnier. We're big on funny-looking names here in South Bedbugburg.

__________________
Click here to see the items I have up for auction at EBay

Click here to see a photo album of my '62 Sprite Project Moneypit (Now Sold)

Bot, I couldn't make it through all that. Did they really SPEAK like that back then too???
But I did pick up on that they wanted to make sure sensible, knowledgeable people were making this decision. I also am pretty sure it was to prevent having 20 candidates spread around the country (which consisted of 13 colonies then). The 2 party system I have no problem with, or the 2 senators and the distribution of congressmen, etc etc. No matter what anyone says, I don't think I'll ever change my view that at this point in time we can abandon Electoral College. One man, one vote.
Gilly

__________________
Click here to see the items I have up for auction at EBay

Click here to see a photo album of my '62 Sprite Project Moneypit (Now Sold)

Do you support 2 senators per state? Why not have them in equal proportion to the voting population?

Ever read Washington's fair-well address? It's full of great advice but it would bore even the most ardent political scientist. I think the educated ones probably did talk like that. I mean, the Federalist Papers (John Jay, Hamilton, and Madison) were all dense. Yuck. I guess that's one of the main reasons I like Jefferson's writing. He wrote in a simple yet obviously educated style. What took Washington or Hamilton pages to finally get out of their minds, Jefferson seemed to effortlessly jot in a couple of paragraphs.

Pay attention to recent history: remember the crybabies whining that Winner X didn't get the majority of the vote, therefore Winner X has no "mandate" to run his county/state/country/whatever. With 3 or more parties, it is unlikely you will ever get close to a majority for the winner, and most likely the MAJORITY did not vote for the winner so you have more pissed off people than ever. Then we would have people screaming for change - AGAIN.

Sit back and watch the people who think the electoral system is obsolete. Every one of them backed a loser so now they want to change the rules. Look up the word "disenfranchise". It is not even a word. It was created in 2000 in Florida. It is codespeak for "my guy lost and I am a whiner".

__________________
MB-less

"Whatever". Doesn't rankle me like the Electoral College, no. (at least the senators are selected by popular vote)

Gilly

__________________
Click here to see the items I have up for auction at EBay

Click here to see a photo album of my '62 Sprite Project Moneypit (Now Sold)

This is all true, but the other side of the coin is that the sysetm of having two senators per state regardless of size or population was also, perhaps more importangly, a politically pragmatic solution. They passed it that way because it was the only way the small states would agree to join this new country.

And for the same reason we will never (probably) change that feature of our wonderful, flawed, sysem of government. (Its still the best one that I know of).

I don't really understand the details of how Canada's system and England's system works but I would say that it has some very good features that I like, such as not having elections at set intervals, thereby eleminating our expensive never ending election cycles. Their system seems to be fairly stable too and folks enjoy individual freedom much like ours.

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I looked it up in our old-fashioned paper dictionaries.
It is a word.
It wasn't created in 2000 in Florida.