A collection of 12 states that vote GOP with predictability have 55 electors, the same as California, but have an aggregate population of 15 million less than California. There are 663,000 voters per electoral vote in California compared to 397,000 votes per electoral votes in these twelve states. That a very significant disparity.

The 12 states are Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, N.D., S.D., Alaska, Utah, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Mississippi, Nebraska and Kentucky.

If the tables were turned, and voters in red states saw their votes counting for less than votes in blue states, conservatives would be calling for the abolition of the Electoral College.

i totally agree, but the balance is skewed at this point. when a minority can dictate to a majority, it is time to make adjustments. our country has grown since the constitutional convention and personally i think it is only natural that our government eveloves to reflect those changes.

and don’t talk down to me, i have two graduate degrees and probably know just as much or more than you on this subject. ask a question, don’t make an assumption like you know me.

It is a representative democracy. A Republic. A Republic where the rule of law out-weighs the passion of the democratic horde.

It’s why Senators are elected every six years and representatives are elected every two. It’s why there is a balance of power within the over all architecture of the Republic as well as in the House.

as for the electoral college, if gw had not won in 2000 via the supreme court, i don’t think this issue would matter so much. but he LOST the popular vote in 2000 and has been president for 8 years. that can’t happen again. if you can fix that within the electoral college system,t hen do so by all means. but less populous states do not deserve to have even say with more populous states. our system is based on one person, one vote. that vote doesn’t count within the current system.

off-topic: when i was in law school a professor encouraged me to research lanie grenier’s (sp?) proposal. i forget what she called exactly but the idea was to vote for our elected officials in much the same way minority shareholders vote in a corporation. we would be able to pool our votes and make them count for more. at the time, i agreed with everyone else that it was crazy. but if you really research the idea, it actually has some merit.

but it still comes back to one person one vote. if that is going to mean anything, then the person who wins the popular vote should win the election and the will of the people (all the people) should mean something.

another aside: i appreciate the intelligent exchange without all the hysteria and name-calling.

What you see as the wrong of the less populous states having somewhat levelized power (it is not perfect, by any means) was put in the constitution for a reason – specifically to keep the more populous states from imposing their will on the rest of the people. You might feel completely different if you happen to find yourself living in one of the less populous states due to a job change in the future.

As for the off topic portion: You’re cheerfully neglecting the fact that the Democrats have repeatedly blocked the appointments Bush has tried to make – Clinton got almost all of his through without obstructionism from the Republicans.

honestly, i believe the reason this is such a big deal is because people, like me, in highly populated areas are beginning to resent being told how to live our lives via rules/laws implemented by areas with less people. that’s really what i think is driving this. if conservatives (and i use this phrase as loosely and generally as possible because i think the issue is much larger than that) would just let the rest of us live, i don’t think you’d be seeing this. we are looking for a way to blunt their ability to govern those of us who do not live in their state/area. i don’t think that’s an unfair request.

as for circumventing the constitution, as a lawyer (newly minted) i have become a true cynic as to the true power of our constitution. in broad strokes it covers a lot but as they said the devil is in the details. for example, you have a problem with this. but i have a problem with a president who habitually makes recess appointments, circumventing the power of congress. i also have a problem with the politicizing of federal judges (both sides are too blame for this) which undercuts the constitution mandate that the senate “advise and consent” which for this adminstration means rubber stamp whatever i say. so, don’t preach to me about circumventing the constitution because gw does it everyday and i don’t hear any uproars.

Again – be careful – you are playing with fire with this whether you see it or not.

it’s not about MY state’s vote. that’s the electoral college system. it’s about MY vote as an individual. why does it matter whether the person who won in my state wins, if the person who won the election wins? get it? it’s more fair because i can vote for whoever i want and not be concerned that people in my state think (and vote) otherwise.

all the electoral college does is give way too much power to the minority vote. it perverts the idea that every vote counts.

Gee. That sounds fair. Fairly anti-democratic, that is. Be very very careful what you wish for.

as for the smaller states being left out, if EVERY vote matters then candidates would have to address EVERY voter. it would make the process more fair and balanced not less. i hope this works and the electoral college is done away with for good.

National Direct Election was rejected first because it violated the balance of power that the small states insisted on (care to guess why each state has an equal number of Senators??. Congressional Election was not popular because of fear of corruption and the State Legislature Election faced that plus the sway that federal officials could tempt states with. (First anti-pork action)

A compromise was reached by basing the Electoral College on the Centurial Assembly. This gave each bloc of eligible voters a voice. While I’m sure that not many people today are educated enough to know what the Centurial Assembly was the Founders were.

Finally the 12th Amendment dictates the operation of the Electoral College and it would take an Amendment to the COnstitution to change it.

Todd, what are your guesses that states like Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Wyoming, the Dakotas and so on are going to approve such a system?