Tim:

It's true that the Electoral College is meant to give representation to
smaller states. It performs this function very well - too well.  During the
past 200 years, along with a tremendous boom in population and urban
activity, the basis of conflicting interests has actually shifted away from
states vs. fed to rural (agrarian and energy) vs. urban (manufacture,
commerce, and transportation), with the Fed as the prize.  Most urban areas
are in states with powerful rural economies.  This means that, in the larger
states, federal representation is diluted (in the Senate, practically
diminished to zero).  Since there are many primarily rural states and, with
the "exception" of D.C., no primarily urban states, the urban population is
under-represented in the federal government.

During the Cold War, it was said that citizens of New York and Moscow have
more in common with each other than either has with a citizen of rural Iowa
or the rural Ukraine (and vice versa).  Citizens of San Francisco and
Chicago have more in common with each other than either has with a citizen
of rural Illinois or rural California.  Drawing the lines of representation,
especially in presidential races, along state boundaries no longer reflects
the actual dislocation of interests.

I am not arguing for a dissolution of the Union, the Constitution, or the
Electoral College as they presently exist (though they do not balance power
very well anymore, if they ever actually did).  It is simply that I do not
hold the winner-take-all-by-state Electoral College to be representative of
the interests even of the particular states in which they are appointed.
And, since to eliminate the Electoral College would require the
participation of those who now hold greater representation per capita, the
Electoral College (as well as boob-tube elections) is here to stay.

One positive effect of the Bush selection (I baulk at saying that he was
elected) could be that people will pay more attention to representation in
both Congress and their respective state legislatures.  Most people know who
the president is.  Many know who their senators are.  Fewer know who their
congressmen are.  Still fewer know who their state representatives are.
Maybe the threat of the Florida Legislature to select their own slate of
electors should Gore win the popular vote after a full recount will wake our
neighbors up a bit - but probably not.  The airwaves will be full of the
next spectacle and the treachery of this election will be largely forgotten
or dispersed with inflated rhetoric.

Unfortunately, I can't "remember a day when the historians left blanks in
their writings, I mean, for things they didn't know."

All that just to say that I basically agree with you.


Dirk Johnson
Assistant Vice President
Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga
A Division of Zions First National Bank

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Romano [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 8:31 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: USA elections


Jacob
Thanks for the compliment.  The charges of anachronism and class-bias are
often brought against the electoral college system. But were it not for the
disproportionate clout the less populous states get through this system,
presidential candidates and party platforms might pay little or no attention
to these states; even more attention would be spent on wooing those states
with the large urban populations: Illinois, California, New York,
Pennsylvania, et al --- and the attention would probably be given in the
form of 10-second sound-bites on mass media. So the anachronism might be
regarded as one of the few institutional counters to the purely boob-tube
campaign. In any event, powerful economic interests centered in sparsely
populated states (mining, forestry, agribusiness, energy) pretty much
guarantee that these states will never willingly hand back power to the
urban centers. That said, there is still some realistic hope that in a
greater number of states the apportioning of electors might be carried out
on a pro-rata basis, rather than winner-take-all, which would have some
beneficial impact upon the process, I think, especially in respect to the
viability of reform parties.
Tim Romano


>         Your analysis of the Supreme Court's erroneous decisions is
> masterly. Well done.
>         I am more than ever struck by the fact that these provisions for
> electing a President are archaic, intended for a time when the states had
> more autonomy, when there were no parties, and when legislatures consisted
> of upper-class landholders.
>
>