Saddam wasn't half bad....

You really think scrapping the EC is that big of a deal fishin?

It rarely ever makes a difference, except in the symbolism people attach to it I think it is a simple cog to alter.

Something like the Senate or Judicial system does not in fact check directly on majority opinion, but on elected representatives who should reflect that opinion.

I believe the electoral college is in fact a different issue as there is no middle man--it directly distorts the voice of the people, rather than being a check or balance set up against corruption.

I think it's a huge deal mentally to the people that live in the less populated states.

Perhaps that's because I've almost always lived in the least populated regions of some very low population states but when you live in the boonies it's pretty easy to see that your voice gets over looked at pretty much every level.

People form populated ares don't have to much problem convincing the Congress to vote to dump nuclear waste out in the midle of AZ or NM and the people in the larger cities don't have much problem getting the state governments to force the small towns to accept their garbage, sewage and prisons. Anything that the "NIMBY" folks don't want in their cities or towns gets dumped on the poor schmucks out in the boonies were no one else has to look at it or smell it.

But when those same cities need more water they also don't have much problem getting the government to dam up rivers and divert water and if a small town or two has to disappear for that to happen that's just to bad for them.

It may not seem like getting rid of the EC is a big deal to you but to those people that get dumped on every day it's a much bigger deal.

It's not a simple cog to eliminate either. Being that it's written into the Constitution it means passing an amendment which is not an easy thing to get done. I can think of several thousand things that could be done much easier and are more worthy of people's time and energy.

fishin
If your voice as one from the boonies already gets overlooked at every level, then the checks and balances are pretty meaningless for you anyway, aren't they?

Huh? How is the judicial system not a direct check on democracy? People vote for something and the court rules it unconstitutional. Your vote then means nothing. That's pretty darn direct! The same issue with the Congress. 200 million people can go and vote for something in this country but it can only become law if the Congress agrees to vote for it. If they vote it down then the issue is dead.

But in all of your examples the issues would probably not be affected by the EC at all...

IMO the president is a position that isn't reflected by the local/land factors many use in the "tyranny of the majority" argument.[/quote}

But they ARE affected by the EC. The Presidential candidates are currently forced to go to the boonies and pay attention to people out there because they have to win the EC and then once they are in office, they have to at least consider the desires of the boonies because they'll need thier votes to get reelected. All of those things I mentioned get Federal funding so they need an act of Congress signed by the President to happen.


[quote]To me it's a big deal that my vote is practically useless too. I have considered travelling and registering in a different state for the upcoming elections.

And while I can understand that those who have a more valuable vote might feel particularly attached to it I'm not sure that it says anything about the merit of them having it.

Agreed, I don't expect it to change.

But beyond the symbolism to the special voters, and the protocol for changing it do you see anything inherent to the EC system that would cause a great imbalance if it were eliminated?

Personally I don't think it will make another difference in my lifetime so either way it's just a conceptual qualm I have.

Honestly, Fishin', with communication as advanced as it is, I don't see how a candidate could possibly neglect certain areas. Anyone who cares can become informed about the issues. Besides, I'm under the impression that most people just vote for parties, and that most parties are passed on genetically. Again, that's just an impression, but most people don't care who their voting for, just what party their parents voted for. Even is cases like that are the minority, it is obviously influential, and to me drowns out most other inaccuracies in voting. I won't try to argue that, it's just an opinion.

Pity the liberal voter in a state like Texas. Bush will carry all but a handful of precincts for certain, and the real campaigning hasn't even started.

But they ARE affected by the EC. The Presidential candidates are currently forced to go to the boonies and pay attention to people out there because they have to win the EC and then once they are in office, they have to at least consider the desires of the boonies because they'll need thier votes to get reelected.

Methinks the actual value shift in the votes is greatly overblown.

I remember another: the cuban expats in Florida.

But the problem is that now I think it's MUCH more important to get rid of the EC.

The clearest examples I can think of for such occurances are some of the things I most object to.

I now contend that the EC is not just a conceptual flaw but a system that gives minority lobbies inordinate power in a real and tangible way.

Most Americans do not want a Cuban policy that the Cuban expats want but the American Cuban policy is closer to that which the expats in Florida want.

I'd have to spend some time digging into the details but I think those two particluar issues might actually hurt your case. Steel is mostly PA and OH and the Cuban ex-pats are almsot entirely in FL. Those are all more heavily populated areas that get their vote "toned down" by the EC currently. If there were no EC I think their voices would be even louder but I'd have to research it.