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.
>
>