Gar,

>>>>Good information, thanks Bruce. I need to take some time ( if I could find some :-) ) and study this both historically and contemporary.
>>>
>>>According to today's paper (which probably means according to the AP <g>), the Electoral College was a compromise between those wanted Congress to choose the president and those who wanted a direct popular election. If I get a minute, I may pull down my copy of "Miracle at Philadelphia" (assuming I haven't loaned it out) and see if I can find some of the discussion on the topic.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Tamar,
>>
>>I believe that is correct. Some wanted to avoid mob rule and some thought man was ruled by his 'better angels'.
>>
>>My guess would be that Jefferson wanted direct elections and Madison wanted Congress to choose...
>
>Our founding fathers did lot's of things right -- but the electoral college was one of them. Our constitution had a number of mistakes

That is what is known as a gratuitous assertion. As such I am free to make one in response. I will not. <g>

However, I would simply point out to you some 224 years of Electoral COllege successes. Please demonstrate an equal number of non-Electoral College successes if you can and I'll be happy to think that your assertion is more than gratuitous.

>
>The constitution specifically enshrined slavery. It took a Civil War to get rid of slavery, and the last remmenants are not gone yet.

Yes, it did. Having said that I might encourage you to red up on why that particular compromise was made. Did it stink? You bet but if you are an ardent foe of slavery what have you done about the slavery that goes on today in the Sudan? Sadly it's worse now than at many other times in world history.

BTW.. It was the British who were the primary slavers; followed hard by the Arabs in Africa.

>
>When Madison talks of "tyranny of the majority" , the minority he is protecting is men of wealth and property. I think the rich and powerful have enough protection in this country -- and it is time the rest of us got some protection too. I'd just as soon it happens , in part ,through eliminating the archaic electoral college rather than (sometime in the future) another Civil War.

Right, and with all the taxes and political rhetoric emminating from the lips of Al Gore these days it was probably a very wise move. <g>

As far as you being some sort of 'victim' of 'the rich' I say baloney. You're only a victim if, in your own mind, you want to be one.

>
>I'll just add, that if you are really concerned about "tyranny of the majority" then electoral college still is not the answer The minority it protects today is Montanans -- hardly a group that suffers from oppression by the rest of the U.S.
>
>If you want to protect minorities who actually have suffered from tyranny of the majority, replace the electoral college with direct voting -- and then give Black People, Indians, Latinos, and Asians -- say two votes each. For that matter there is a (very slim majority) who has suffered similar exclusions. So multiply the woman's vote by 1.25 as well.

Right.. Let's compound stupid, bad and evil deeds with more - all in the name of 'fairness'.

When I was a youth we used to call that a double standard and hypocrisy. Today it's called 'fair'.

All I can say is that George Orwell only missed it by 16 years. <g>