>Gar,
>
>>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>

Nope that was a statement to be backed by evidence -- evidence followed.
>
>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 electoral college worked most of the time, because most of the time there was no conflict between the popular vote and the electoral college. The electoral college has conflicted with the popular vote three times in history. (not counting this election which is not yet settled). The country did not collapse -- but US is strong enough to take a lot of punishment. The argument is that the electoral college protects us from the "tyranny of the majority". So point out one case in which the electoral college conflicted with the popular vote, and the loser showed evicence of being some sort of "mob tyrant" (in the pre-organized crime sense of the word)

>
>>
>>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.

That does not change the fact that slavery was a catasphrophe for this country. The argument was not whether the founding fathers made the best of bad choices, but whether we need to let those bad choices linger forever.

>
>>
>>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.
Hmm, I don't remember crying "victim". The fact is that in our electoral system, money talks a lot louder than grass-roots action. That is not good for democracy, and a lot of it is due to structure of our constitution.

>
>>
>>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'.

My friend, you are the one worrying about "tyranny" of the majority. I was simply followng the practice of "reduction to absurdity". I think most minorities and women would be happy with mere equal rights. But, I note that you seem very comfortable with giving Montanans "special rights" -- it is when I suggest that women and people of various colors get those them that you suddenly get indignant.

You need to be consistent here. If you oppose special rights, then that should include special rights for Montanans. If you support special rights, then minorities and women have a greater claim to them with Montanans.
>
>When I was a youth we used to call that a double standard and hypocrisy. Today it's called 'fair'.

See above -- it seems that in defending the Electoral college as it stands, but opposing the "alternative electoral college" I suggested you are the one with the double standard.
>
>All I can say is that George Orwell only missed it by 16 years. <g>

You mean as in Montanans good? Women and minorities bad? <g> (Note: Animal farm -- not 1984)