XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: pxhxz@cadence.com   
      
   In article <3513d8b1.0311261528.1c204e51@posting.google.com> ulTRAX@arabia.com   
   (ulTRAX) writes:   
      
   >WTF does your example have to do with anything? Election 2000 is OVER.   
   >The loser took the prize because the anti-democratic rules were rigged   
   >in his favor. But that does NOT mean that we are forever stuck with a   
   >dangerous and dysfunctional election system any more than the major   
   >sports who routinely tinker with their rules.   
      
   One of the problems with the Electoral College is that states decide how to   
   apportion their EC votes.  Some states divide the votes proportionally, but   
   IIRC most states are "winner take all".   
      
   Even without getting rid of the EC, just changing the rules so that all states   
   must divide EC votes proportionally would make the presidential election more   
   "democratic".   
      
   It wouldn't fix the fact that smaller states get proportionally more votes   
   than larger states, but no system is perfect.   
      
   -Pete Zakel   
    (phz@seeheader.nospam)   
      
   "Liar: A lawyer with a roving commission."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)