>>Unlike Mike, I don't believe we should get rid of the
>electoral college as that would cause the same disenfranchisement to the smaller states as us in rural areas currently have to put up with. Instead I hope that California changes the way its electoral votes are assigned. All or nothing doesn't represent the diversity of this state.
>
>I can't believe, Jake, finally something we agree on. I'd like to see all the states go to congressional district allocation of electoral college votes, with the two extras going to the winner of the popular vote.
>
So would I. There is apparantly a movement in CA to implement this. A friend of mine said this was "a blatent attempt by the right-wing to steal our electoral votes" or words to that effect. Of course he's right. The proposal was instigated by the Republicans because they, in the current political climate, would gain by it.

I pointed out to him that two states actually do it this way. I pointed out that enfranchising more people would normally be considered a "liberal" postion.

I couldn't find election results broken down by congressional district for 2000 so I went a different route and allocated the congressional votes proportionately based upon statewide votes. (Among other things, this would mean electoral votes to 3rd party candidates) The result (at least according to my math) was the Bush would have won in 2000 by 6 electoral votes.

I concluded by saying that I would vote against this change because of the obvious political basis on which it was proposed, but that I would vote in favor if this were implemented on a national level.

The result was as expected. Since his "enemies" (and far to many on both sides of the political spectrum think of their opposites as evil and enemies) are in favor of this, to be in favor was to support all his enemies policies.



>I'd also like to see a primary system that gives every state a meaningful vote. The one I've heard about that I like lets Iowa and NH keep their early dates, but then divides the states into four groups by size. Starting from the group of smallest states, you have a primary day once a month, with one group voting. Done right, no one can get enough delegates until the last of the four dates, so every state gets some clout.
>
I hadn't heard this idea before, but I like it.




>Tamar