From: cubby77267@aol.com   
      
   On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:48:55 GMT, mjoann    
   wrote:   
      
   >Loki wrote:   
   >> The Electoral College, as well as denying citizens of large states the   
   >> same vote per person to choose a President is also obsolete and   
   >> unnecessary.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Loki   
   >   
   >So, if we get rid of the electoral college, do you actually think any   
   >candidates will campaign in states other than the top ten or so?   
      
   Right now the opposite is true. Candidates spend more time by far in   
   Iowa, Nevada, and Wisconsin than they do in California, New York, and   
   Texas.   
      
   >Somehow, I don't think the less populous states would ever see a   
   >candidate in that scenario.   
      
   Is that preferable to the citizens of the larger states not seeing the   
   candidates?   
      
   > I don't believe the residents of N and S   
   >Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska, the smaller Eastern states, etc. would care for   
   >your idea.   
      
   And, as pointed out the citizens of California, Texas, and New York do   
   not care for the current situation. The difference is that there are a   
   lot more citizens in the larger states who are being denied.   
      
   > Even with the media, voters want to know that the candidates   
   >"care" enough to come and talk to them and address their problems.   
      
   Correct. And why should the very few dictate at the expense of the   
   greater majority?   
      
   >My   
   >state's a "battleground" state, so they've been here many times, but I'd   
   >be annoyed if they didn't think my state was worth showing up for.   
      
   So you know how Californian's, Texan's, and New Yorker's feel.   
      
   >Different states have different needs, and I don't think Alaskans would   
   >like to see their issues swallowed up by the huge population of   
   >California that has very different needs.   
      
   And Californian's, Texan's, and New Yorker's have interests beyond   
   those of Nevadan's and Iowan's. However, we are left out of the mix.   
      
   >The Electoral College is a necessary evil that prevents candidates from   
   >ignoring small states.   
      
   So in your opinion it is acceptable to ignore the larger states?   
      
   > It also prevents a charismatic speaker from   
   >thwarting the election totals by gathering a following (ie factions) in   
   >a few large states.   
      
   It also guarantees that the two party system will maintain a monopoly   
   on the process.   
      
   >It is never as simple as making each vote count equally.   
      
   But, it should be. In choosing our representatives in every other form   
   of government from City Council and School Board to Governor's and   
   Senator's the citizens to be represented over have equal voice.   
      
   Why should it be that when choosing the most powerful individual   
   elected official that the voice of some citizens should be so much   
   greater than that of others?   
      
      
   Loki   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)