One person.

[COLOR=indigo]Is there really anything that one person can do to change "the way things are"?

Income taxes are illegal.
Congresspeople get stupidly huge retirements.
Electoral College.

What can one person do? What can 5 people do?

How can a single person change the way things are done?


I was thinking about voting and I've been reading on here, and I keep finding myself thinking, "Why should I give a SHIT?" And then I answer myself: "Because if you don't vote, you don't get to bitch."

Well, so what if I vote? It doesn't make one bit of difference, because even if the popular vote wins, the electoral college doesn't have to vote for that person.

So why bother?

What can I do do make a difference?
[/COLOR]

If Florida 2000 didn't show you how every vote really does count, then you need professional help. :)

You may feel free to bitch even if you don't vote.

That old saw's just something somebody made up to make non-voters feel guilty.

Anyone is allowed to bitch. It's right there in the big Radar document.

[Radar]It's not my document, you fucking idiot. Where do you get off saying that? It's your document, it's his document, it's all of ours. And I will spill my blood on it fighting for it. A Libertarian will be elected in my lifetime. Windows 2K is the greatest OS ever. Did I mention I'm an MCSE?[/Radar]

IIRC, there are some countries out there where voting is mandatory. Add a "none of the above" option on ballots, and I'd support mandatory voting wholeheartedly.

What's wrong with the electoral college? It was designed by the founding fathers to keep big states from eating little states and it seems to be filling the charter.

It's mandatory to vote in Australia.

Originally posted by Beestie
What's wrong with the electoral college? It was designed by the founding fathers to keep big states from eating little states and it seems to be filling the charter.

It's not like we still have state patriotism on the level that it was back then. No one gives a crap what state you're from. It's more important to just be an American.

I mean, if Arkansas doesn't get as many votes, what are they going to do, secede from the Union?

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
What can one person do? What can 5 people do?

[snip]

What can I do do make a difference?

Well, the opertative word is "Do," isn't it? When one is confronted with any perceived problem, one must take some action, because talking about it, and complaining about it, are pretty ineffective most of the time. Talking about it can help to make other peope aware of the problem, but if nobody actually DOES anything, it's just that much more wind.

Have you written letters to your Congressperson, or started a letter-writing campaign? Have you created and publicized a website describing your views? Have you written a keenly-worded essay on the matter and submitted it for publication to various magazines/newspapers/websites? Have you created and publicized a group or club for people who share your views, and used the combined influence to spread your message? Have you done anything aside from talking about the perceived problem?

Like most people who desire change, you've probably done little of the above. It's a lot of work, and it draws a lot of attention. Some people like to coast in the "it's too late for revision, but too early for a revolution" mindset, some people don't like the risk involved with drawing attention to themselves, and some people don't feel strongly enough to make the time for the effort. There's lots of excuses not to DO anything to solve a problem.

What have I done? Little. I write an e-mail or letter to my Representatives when I feel strongly about something, but most of the time I just bitch about things. Right now, I don't feel strongly enough to do anything much more drastic than voting. But that's just me. And that's just now.

Originally posted by juju
It's not like we still have state patriotism on the level that it was back then. No one gives a crap what state you're from. It's more important to just be an American.

I mean, if Arkansas doesn't get as many votes, what are they going to do, secede from the Union?

Excellent point, sir. The Electoral College is a bit of an antiquated idea... it makes the election power unevenly spread amongst the people. Should a voter in Arkansas have more influence than a voter in California? The Electoral College does just that, by proxy. The presidential election in America isn't really democratic.

Originally posted by Undertoad
You may feel free to bitch even if you don't vote.

That old saw's just something somebody made up to make non-voters feel guilty.

Anyone is allowed to bitch. It's right there in the big Radar document.

Yes, but not to me.:)
ONYX- Vote early, vote often.

Originally posted by sycamore
If Florida 2000 didn't show you how every vote really does count, then you need professional help. :)

The 2000 election showed me just how little every vote counts.

How so?

Originally posted by Torrere
The 2000 election showed me just how little every vote counts.

No matter how many times they recount it ... he still won.

Sixteen million people were almost evenly divided in who they wanted for President, with a margin of a few hundred. Florida's votes, which decided the vote of the nation and which are supposed to represent the will of (the people of) Florida, represented only half of the population.

I felt this more strongly perhaps because in my state, regardless of how you cast your vote, all of the votes of the state will be cast for the same contestant. We have the most lopsided ratio of Elephant and Donkey voters in the nation.

Well.. actually, the power of the President is largely based upon how much support they have amongst the public. Our opinions do matter in the grand scheme of things. Bush's lack of legitimacy (lack of a clear, uncontested public vote in his favor) hurt him until September 11th 2001, when the nation decided to support the President. The same story would have happened to Gore.

I disagree. Had we been under the Gore administration, there would have been NO clear use of military force. I believe we would have gone to the UN and gotten another resolution condemning terrorism, a lot of hot air from the White House promising to ferret out and punish the evildoers (when in fact they are all already dead), a bunch of flag-waving from the public, then nothing. Just like when President Clinton launched a bunch of Tomahawk missiles at Iraq, causing little damage and (IIRC) only one death. BAH!

I for one am GLAD 9-11-01 happened under George Bush. I voted for him without reservation and will do so again. I think he's done a good job so far and compared to the Democratic ticket presented thus far, he'll do a better job again.

Terrorists must know that if they attack the USA, we will come after them no matter where they hide and no matter what they blow up. They will pay with their very lives for attacking us. This strategy works, witness the former USSR...once terrorists captured an airliner. The Russian Special FOrces stormed the plane and killed them all. No negotiations, no mercy. It's unfortunate that they also killed a few of the hostages, but that's war. And terrorism is a declaration of war on a nation by a faction, IMO.

Brian "gets off his soapbox for now" R

Originally posted by hot_pastrami

Excellent point, sir. The Electoral College is a bit of an antiquated idea... it makes the election power unevenly spread amongst the people. Should a voter in Arkansas have more influence than a voter in California? The Electoral College does just that, by proxy. The presidential election in America isn't really democratic.

CA has more electoral voters than does AR which mirrors the makeup of their respective congressional delegations. If the electoral representation is unfair, that sort of implies that the congressional representation is also unfair. Since no one is making that argument, I'm suspicious (in an "I smell partisanship" kind of way) of the calls to re-examine the electoral college. I don't understand how one can be fair and the other not. CA gets 10 congressmen and AR gets 3. CA gets 10 electoral votes and AR gets 3. I don't see a problem (I made up the numbers made up to illustrate the point - I assume the ratio to be a Constant).

The only issue not really addressed is that congress people from a given state do not have to vote as a block as do their electoral counterparts. But in matters which pit the interests of AR directly against the interests of CA (i.e., the distribution of Federal funds), one may assume that each state's respective congressional delegation would, in fact, vote as a block.

I honestly don't recall anyone bringing up any issues with the electoral system prior to the 2000 election and wonder how much of the debate is really sour grapes (not directed at anyone participating in this thread, but in general).

Originally posted by Beestie
What's wrong with the electoral college? It was designed by the founding fathers to keep big states from eating little states and it seems to be filling the charter.

No, that was the Senate. The electoral college was to keep the riff raff from eating the gentry. They couldn't be assured of controlling the popular vote but controlling the EC was relatively easy. They only had to make sure their own kind, were the electors sent, no matter who won the vote.

Originally posted by Beestie
snip---The only issue not really addressed is that congress people from a given state do not have to vote as a block as do their electoral counterparts.----snip----
I honestly don't recall anyone bringing up any issues with the electoral system prior to the 2000 election and wonder how much of the debate is really sour grapes (not directed at anyone participating in this thread, but in general).

I know not all state laws require their electoral college delegates to vote the way the general election turned out. They are only bound by honor and duty which is quite variable when it comes to politics.
The EC is brought up after every election. The bitching is louder after close ones.

No one brought up the EC before 2000 because the situation that occurred with Gore and Bush hadn't happened since 1888.

I personally think it's a dumb system--why do we need the electoral college? It should be based on the vote of the people, minus any bureaucratic b.s. Gore got screwed.

Having said that, based on the current rules, Bush won, fair and square--and would have still won even if Gore had gotten the recount of votes the way he wanted them.

What if the media would have remembered that part of Florida is on Central Time, and not called Florida for Gore so quickly? Enough people could have still voted to give Gore the victory...or give the victory more solidly to Bush.

And that's why every vote counts.

We can speculate on what would have happened if the same thing had happened to Bush, or what Gore would have done on 9/11...but all that is water under the bridge now.

I wonder whatever happened to S.3269 in 2001...

It was discussed at length when Kennedy beat Nixon by something like 300k.

Specter was behind 3269...remember how he talked about the Electoral College being unfair right after the 2000 election?

I hope he gets voted out in November too...

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It was discussed at length when Kennedy beat Nixon by something like 300k.

I stand corrected...thank you, very very old man. :)

[COLOR=indigo]Bringing this post back up to top because I really was hoping Radar would respond.

[SIZE=1]hint hint, Radar.[/SIZE]

By the way, Alan's post was more along the lines of what I was looking for....[/COLOR]

I know I'm not Radar, but I'm reminded of a lecture I heard once in college that explained one need for the electoral college...

Simply put, the EC cuts down on the feasibility of corruption. Let's say you know a guy at a polling location in Louisiana, and you have the ability to stuff the ballot box. So you put in 500,000 fake votes for Your Guy. What you get for your efforts is... the state of Louisiana, and no more. You could stuff the ballot box with 30 million votes, and it wouldn't matter.

Without the electoral college, Your Guy would win for sure, because votes are just votes. But with it, you would have to "know a guy" in a whole lot of states before you could truly rig the election to a significant degree.

I know elections are usually very close and can, in fact, hinge on one state, but one doesn't always know which state that's going to be. There are many that historically vote pretty evenly between the two parties.

Anyway, that was the lecture in a nutshell.

The electoral college prevents localized mind control efforts to greatly impact the whole process. You would need to set up many mind control stations throughout the states in order to vote your candidate in.

Believe me, I've tried.

Damn you electoral college! One day I will have the resources to topple you!

Originally posted by Slartibartfast
The electoral college prevents localized mind control efforts to greatly impact the whole process. You would need to set up many mind control stations throughout the states in order to vote your candidate in.

Believe me, I've tried.

Damn you electoral college! One day I will have the resources to topple you!

What many people don't realize is that one tin foil hat can actually protect a small area around it as well. It sets up a reflectory/refractory disturbance around it that makes the area impenetrable.

OC, although I understand your frustration, *you* of all people should know the power that you wield as an individual. Only you can do what you can do, and no one else can do it. Nor can anyone else take away your ability to work your will.

Until you take action, any action, it is impossible to know what effects those actions will have as they ripple outward from your solitary initiative efforts.

Pull your chin up, get your tools out and get to work, lady! And don't spare the incense! :thumb:

Originally posted by sycamore

I personally think it's a dumb system--why do we need the electoral college? It should be based on the vote of the people, minus any bureaucratic b.s.

One person, one vote would destroy state's rights.

How so?

[Radar]It's not my document, you fucking idiot. Where do you get off saying that? It's your document, it's his document, it's all of ours. And I will spill my blood on it fighting for it. A Libertarian will be elected in my lifetime. Windows 2K is the greatest OS ever. Did I mention I'm an MCSE?[/Radar]

Blow me retard. You seem to make fun of, get jealous of, and habor a hatred of everything you lack the mental capacity to comprehend, which is pretty much everything. Don't be bitter because I have a better understanding of politics and computer networking than you'll ever have. And don't hate me because I'm your intellectual superior. Hate me because I'm an asshole.

I would do a an impression of you in return, but no matter how hard I try, I just can't act that stupidly and frankly, you're just not worth the effort.

What's wrong with the electoral college? It was designed by the founding fathers to keep big states from eating little states and it seems to be filling the charter.

What's wrong is many people feel that since government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, it should be the governed who choose the president. Many think the people, not the states, should choose who they are delegating power to without a middle-man and without the possibility of more Americans voting for one candidate, but the other candidate winning the election.

The original purpose of the electoral college was to prevent those who weren't educated about a candidate from voting for one. Back then the candidates didn't have the benefit of radio, television, internet, or even major roads so they didn't get to all the states. They thought it would be best to have middle-men between the general populace and the election of the president. They also wanted to keep the vast majority of governmental power at the state rather than the federal level.

All citizens are entitled to the same rights. When you have a state with a lower population and a state with a higher population voting in an election with an electoral college, the value of 1 vote in a smaller state has a higher value than the vote of a person in a larger state. This doesn't seem equitable for the aggregate number of citizens. Even with the number of electorates given to each state, the potential for having a non-democratically elected president (as we currently have) is present. On the other hand, the people of a small state, don't want the greater population of another state to change their policies. This is just an argument to keep the federal government out of issues they don't have authority to be involved in and to let the states choose for themselves what laws they will have.

As much as I hate to agree with sycamore, he's right in this comment...

No one brought up the EC before 2000 because the situation that occurred with Gore and Bush hadn't happened since 1888.

Any system in which more citizens choose one candidate, but the other becomes president has major flaws. We currently have the technology to enable the "one person one vote"

Bringing this post back up to top because I really was hoping Radar would respond.

I'm doing this just for you. :)

Personally I'd support an Constitutional Amendment repealing the electoral college.

Also as horrible as Gore would have been, he'd still be better than Bush. Clinton was a scumbag but even on his worst day, he was a better president than Bush on his best day (9/11). If Gore had been president during the 9/11 attacks, he would have done everything EXACTLY the same way Bush did because the country goes on autopilot when things like that happen. He'd have made the obligatory speeches condemning the terrorists, and he'd have attacked the Taliban for protecting Al Queda. But he would have stopped short of violating the Constitution and International law by launching an unprovoked attack against a non-threatening nation that never caused us harm or helped anyone else cause us harm.

Bush is the single worst president in American history bar none. He's personally responsible for the deaths of more than 800 Americans and other allies and thousands of innocent Iraqi people defending their own country from imperialistic invaders. He has no honor, dignity, courage, intelligence, or honesty. He's a liar, a theif, a murderer, a coward, a traitor, a draft dodger, a military deserter, a simpleton, and an asshole who wants to mix church and state.

Simply put, George W. Bush is more dangerous to America than the combined force of every terrorist in the middle-east combined. He should be executed for treason. All the soap in the world couldn't clean me if I voted for him.

Back to the topic at hand...

I do believe one person can make a difference and I've seen it. Ghandi, Martin Luthor King, Jr., Thomas Jefferson, Nelson Mandela, Adolph Hitler, Mother Teresa, etc. were all people who made a difference whether good or bad.

Sometimes a person can make a difference just by showing up. I've seen city council meetings where one person showed up to complain about something and got them go along with it.

Originally posted by Elspode
OC, although I understand your frustration, *you* of all people should know the power that you wield as an individual. Only you can do what you can do, and no one else can do it. Nor can anyone else take away your ability to work your will.

Until you take action, any action, it is impossible to know what effects those actions will have as they ripple outward from your solitary initiative efforts.

Pull your chin up, get your tools out and get to work, lady! And don't spare the incense! :thumb:

[COLOR=indigo]**beam** I love you so much, Els, I really do. Can you feel it?

I guess most of my problem is that, even if I vote, look at the choices I get. And the electoral college will only ever vote for Dem or Rep, not for Ind or Lib, so even if I vote for Nader, (as an example), it wont matter. But I've been thinking about what Alan wrote, and it makes sense, I'm just not sure if I want alot of attention. Not that I'm hiding out or anything, but attention at this point can still be bad. [/COLOR]

No one knows what goes on inside the Solitary's circle except the Solitary...well, almost no one, anyway.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
But I've been thinking about what Alan wrote, and it makes sense, I'm just not sure if I want alot of attention. Not that I'm hiding out or anything, but attention at this point can still be bad.

That's the risk-versus-reward system in action. Consider the possible outcomes of your actions, good and bad, and decide whether the possibility of the desired outcome is worth the risk of the problems, as well as the likelihood of each. If your current place in life is such that the potential problems outweigh the potential rewards, then you just need to change the situation, change your mind, or wait.

Sometimes the hardest part is measuring the risk-versus-reward ratio. But when it comes to your life and what you do with it, only your own measurements count.

I am from the second-biggest benificiary of the Electoral College (DC, second to Wyoming), and my vote would be to have direct voting.

Originally posted by Radar


Bush is the single worst president in American history bar none. He's personally responsible for the deaths of more than 800 Americans and other allies and thousands of innocent Iraqi people defending their own country from imperialistic invaders. He has no honor, dignity, courage, intelligence, or honesty. He's a liar, a theif, a murderer, a coward, a traitor, a draft dodger, a military deserter, a simpleton, and an asshole who wants to mix church and state.

other than that, how do you like him?

Originally posted by lumberjim
other than that, how do you like him?

I suspect that if I knew him personally, I'd detest his nicknaming habit.

other than that, how do you like him?

Other than that, I would probably still dislike him anyway because he's a hypocrite who used drugs but thinks others should be locked up for doing the same thing, he was a frat boy, he doesn't have a backbone of his own, he's never earned anything...he's had everything handed to him on a silver platter including the office he currently holds, he's irresponsible, he's got no lips, he's from a elitist family with corrupt connections in politics, oil, and pharmaceutical companies, and he's from Texas.

radar,
that question was meant to be rhetorical and mildly amusing, but your repsonse was so funny, that i was again caught laughing out loud at my computer by a couple of salesmen, and had to explain what "the cellar" is again.

here's what made me laugh:

he's got no lips

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Sure one person can make a difference. You just have to have lots of money!!! ;)

I'm more of a skeptic when it comes to gubment. Call me a consipracy freak if you want, but when you read about groups like the Carlyle Group , it's hard to imagine one common person making a difference in politics.

They could care less about me or my beliefs, just keep sending in the tax payments and they'll be happy.

Now that we have the 'Patriot' Act, I'd even be fearful of trying to go against the grain.

Originally posted by Radar
Blow me retard. You seem to make fun of, get jealous of, and habor a hatred of everything you lack the mental capacity to comprehend, which is pretty much everything. Don't be bitter because I have a better understanding of politics and computer networking than you'll ever have. And don't hate me because I'm your intellectual superior. Hate me because I'm an asshole.

Blah blah blah blah...

Happy, DC actually shares the distinction of having the fewest electoral votes along with Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

2nd biggest beneficiary...nice spin. :)

Originally posted by sycamore
How so?

Using the county as a breakdown of where major population centers are you get some interesting pictures.




All of the darker areas are where people would campain. I mean Nevada only had a statewide density of 7 people per square mile. Do you really think a presidential hopeful is going to go there?

This image shows how bad the disparity could become.



Without some (artificial?) form of motivation, thinly populated states would never see a candidate. They would lose their ability to sway candidates or push issues to protect their interests.

Originally posted by sycamore
Happy, DC actually shares the distinction of having the fewest electoral votes along with Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming.

2nd biggest beneficiary...nice spin. :)

And of those seven states, only Wyoming has a lower population than DC, so only people in Wyoming have votes that count more than mine.

But in reality, TS, how much sway do those less-populated states really have? Living next to one of those states (Delaware), I can tell you that it has little to no sway. How often do you see the candidates stumping in places like North Dakota or Alaska? The election in 2000 came down to one of the more populous states, and I suspect this election will as well (Ohio, Missouri).

Happy, touché. Do you work in marketing or advertising? :)

Originally posted by sycamore
But in reality, TS, how much sway do those less-populated states really have?

It's a work in progress. Cut me some slack... :)

I didn't say it wasn't already a problem and the issue is bigger than just the presidential elections. Without a way to swing a block of votes, or to counter-balance federal decision making on a larger scale, I believe that individual rights could suffer as well.

What would you guys think of going back to state houses electing the Senate? Senators could go back to representing the interests of their states, instead of turning into creatures of Washington. It almost certainly would put an end to unfunded mandates. It was sold as democratization but it has lead to centralization. I wonder if Gore would've won Tennessee under the old system?

Jeezly Weezly...I had this image in my mind of Arizona as a big, empty desert until I saw that first map.

Where did you think all the dead people went, heaven?:haha:

All of the following text was culled from about.com or howstuffworks.com, and is left in context (which is why it's so damn long...)

It may surprise you to know that Russia has a more direct presidential election process than the United States. In the United States, a system called the Electoral College periodically allows a candidate who receives fewer popular votes to win an election. In fact, there have been several presidential candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the election because they received fewer electoral votes. In Russia, where no such system exists, the candidate who receives a majority of popular votes wins the election.

Each state has a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators (2 in each state) plus the number of its U.S. representatives, which varies according to the state's population. On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on Jan. 6 opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon Jan. 20. Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, which is entirely legal.

In fact, it is possible for a candidate to not get a single person's vote -- not one -- in 39 states or the District of Columbia, yet be elected president by wining the popular vote in just 11 of these 12 states:

California
New York
Texas
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Ohio
Michigan
New Jersey
North Carolina
Georgia
Virginia

There are 538 total votes in the Electoral College and a presidential candidate must win a majority -- 270 -- electoral votes to be elected. Since 11 of the 12 states in the chart above account for exactly 270 votes, a candidate could win these states, lose the other 39, and still be elected.

If you're wondering how someone becomes an elector, it turns out it's not the exact same process across the board. It can actually differ from state to state. In general, though, the two most common ways are:
The elector is nominated by his or her state party committee (perhaps to reward many years of service to the party).
The elector "campaigns" for a spot and the decision is made during a vote held at the state's party convention.

Usually, electors are people who are highly politically active in their party (be it Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican ...) or connected somehow to the political arena, such as: activists, party leaders, elected officials of the state and even people who have ties (political and/or personal) to the Presidential candidates, themselves.

The final electors for each state are voted on by the state's residents on voting day. In many states, the electors' names are printed on the ballots -- where those names "sit" depends on the state. For example, the electors could be listed directly under the presidential candidates' names (Democrats with the Democratic nominee, Libertarians with the Libertarian nominee, Republicans with the Republican nominee and so on) or simply grouped by party somewhere else on the ballot. And, of course, the names might not even be listed at all. Essentially, it is the electors who get voted "in" who end up casting the "real" vote. Hold on, it seems like the last two sentences don't go together, "How can someone be voted "in" if they're not even on a ballot?" Consider this information from the Department of the Secretary of State for North Carolina:

Under North Carolina General Statute § 163-209, the names of candidates for electors of President and Vice-President nominated by any political party recognized in this State under North Carolina General Statute § 163-96 or by any unaffiliated candidate for President of the United States who has qualified to have his name printed on the general election ballot under North Carolina General Statute § 163-122 must be filed with the Secretary of State. A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors of the party or unaffiliated candidate by which those candidates for elector were nominated and whose names have been filed with the Secretary of State.

The key is this part, "A vote for the candidates for President and Vice-President named on the ballot is a vote for the electors..." This is the case for 48 states -- it's known as the "winner-take-all system."

Now, in regard to "winner-take-all" states, keep in mind what we said in the last section: Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. If you do vote against your party, you'll most likely be simultaneously forfeiting your post as elector and you may even incur a hefty fine.

It turns out there is no federal law that requires an elector to vote according to their pledge (to their respective party). And so, more than a few electors have cast their votes without following the popular vote or their party. These electors are called "faithless electors." In response to these faithless electors' actions, several states have created laws to enforce an elector's pledge to his or her party vote or the popular vote. Some states even go the extra step to assess a misdemeanor charge and a fine to such actions. For example, the state of North Carolina charges a fine of $10,000 to faithless electors.

It's important to note, that although these states have created these laws, a large number of scholars believe that such state-level laws hold no true bearing and would not survive constitutional challenge.

In most presidential elections, a candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. There have been four presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than their opponent but more electoral votes.

Proponents of the Electoral College say that the system served its purpose in the elections we talked about, despite the fact that the candidate who won the popular vote didn't always win the election. The Electoral College is a block, or weighed, voting system that is designed to give more power to the states with more votes, but allows for small states to swing an election, as happened in 1876. Under this system, each state is assigned a specific number of votes that is proportional to its population, so that each state's power is representative of its population. So, while winning the popular vote may not ensure a candidate's victory, a candidate must gain popular support of a particular state to win the votes in that state. The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her 270 electoral votes.

The winner-take-all feature of the Electoral College system discourages third party efforts. In contrast, a direct election system encourages candidates to run, simply because they can. The apparent voter choice among a huge number of candidates is a dangerous illusion. In practice, well organized minorities have a very good chance to achieve the highest or second-highest share, advancing to a run off round. While the Electoral College tends to produce candidates that look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, direct election could produce a choice between Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson or Jesse Ventura and Jesse Jackson.

If you don't like our system move to Russia

Very few democracies in the industrial world have a presidential system with direct election. In fact, France, Finland, and now Russia are the only examples. France adopted direct election in 1962, Finland in the 1990s (it has only had one election since).

Under the Electoral College system, only U.S. citizens who are residents of a state may vote for presidential electors, because it is the states, not the citizens, who elect the president.

Under a direct election system, how could the U.S. legitimately deny the vote to citizens who are residents of U.S. Territories and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?

The number of people affected is significant. Puerto Rico alone has over 3 million people.

Under a direct election system, is it defensible to deny citizens the right to vote for the president based on where they live? How could the U.S., who has been promoting democracy throughtout the world, even propose such an idea?

--------------
Let's get into a discussion about territories...ruled and protected by the United States but get absolutely NO SAY in who rules them and what policies are set forth for them?? Hello??

Ugh. I have a headache now. Didn't Perot win New Hampshire or something and the electoral college refused to give it to him?