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. > >