3/24    Continuing the Electoral College thread. Say the Presidential
        election was to be decided by popular vote from now on. Would
        candidates even bother campaigning in states like New Mexico
        or Idaho? Bush would have also spent much more time campaigning
        in California and Gore would have spent more time campaigning
        in Florida.
        \_ Probably not.  So what?  You think it makes sense for votes in
           Wyoming to count for more than votes in California?  -tom
           \_ Yes.  It was a founding principle.  It would be nice if each
              electoral vote were determined by district too, with the winner
              of the state getting the 2 extra.  If you want to change what's
              been in place for over 200 years, go for it.  You know the proc.
           \_ Heard of protecting the minority against tyranny of the
              majority?
              \_ That's a red herring, unless you think "People from
                 Wyoming" are a minority group in need of protection. -tom
                 \_ Of course.  They represent rural interests.
                    Another example - If minority interests are not
                    protected, every drop of the colorado river
                    might have been diverted to Los Angeles.
                    \_ like I said, a red herring.  -tom
                       \_ We are talking about Electoral College
                          in general right?  You do not believe that
                          people living in less densely populated
                          areas and less densely populated states
                          often have interests different and in
                          conflict with those living in major
                          urban centers?
                          \_ I believe there are hundreds of different
                             groups with different interests in the US, and
                             that "rural people" do not deserve special
                             protection, compared to, say "black people" or
                             "men".      -tom
                             \_ Except that the former is written into the
                                constitution and the latter isn't.
                                \_ well, actually, the latter is as well.
                                   The purpose of the electoral college was
                                   not to protect the interests of rural
                                   voters, and it's silly to suggest that
                                   it should be.  -tom
                          \_ Sure they do, but why should their votes
                             count for more? -!tom
                             \_ someone else said before: it isn't that they
                                count for more.  it's to make sure they count
                                at all.  they still barely count as it is.
                                \_ yeah, that must be why 80-90% of the
                                   water in California goes to farmers, they
                                   get screwed because we elect our
                                   governor democratically.  -tom
        \_ Why don't you read what the writers of the Constitution
           thought about democracy and the parallel events in France.
        \_ I didn't see the earlier thread so excuse me if this was said before
           but this is a republic (or close to it), not a democracy.  It's all
           nice to talk about democratic ideals but you can't run a country of
           any real size that way.  To my knowledge there are no true
           democracies right now (or anything close) and haven't been since the
           Greeks experimented with it and even theirs was a limited form.
           \_ every democratic nation in the world, except for us, chooses
              its president/prime minister on the basis of popular vote.
              No one else sees a need for an "electoral college."  -tom
        \_ Under the current Electoral College system, California is worth
           so many more votes than Wyoming that the effect is virtually
           the same.  The way you beat the California edge is by winning
           a coalition of Mid-West States that vote along similar lines
           and bring in more votes combined.  The EC only extended reasonable
           protections when the population was small:  Rhode Island's
           guaranteed 2 votes were worth something when the total vote tally
           was in the low hundreds.  If you want true rural representation,
           allocate EC votes to voting districts, not winner-takes-all.