>>>Doug - Re: the Montanan issue -- the objections to the electoral college is that the less densely populated area you live in the more your vote counts. That is you take the number of electoral votes Montana gets and divide it by their population you get a much higher number than if you take the number of electoral votes California gets and divide by Californias population.
>>>
>>>Thus Montanas get special rights -- more votes per person than other states. further this is the point of the electoral college to provide special rights for lightly populated states.
>>>
>>>In supporting the electoral college you are supporting special rights for lightly populated states, Of course you have defined special righs as evil, so you are a supporter of evil.
>>
>>Gar,
>>
>>Ahh.. Ok.. Well, look... That's the whole idea. Remember, a huge portion of the framer's debates were over the issue of how to best protect the small states from the tyranny of the larger states. It's kind of like the notion that no matter the size of the state the Senate gets two senators and at least one representative in the House.
>>
>>I kind of have to laugh... Was it you or someone else who suggested that some members of our society get 1.5 or 2.0 or 2.5 votes per each white person. And here we see the exact opposite side being taken. <g>
>>
>>I think a huge problem with this discussion is that many are confusing 'fairness' with balance.
>>
>>Regardless, I appreciate your thoughts.
>
>I was suggesting that ironically as a position analogous to your position.
>
>1) Your position: Montanans need extra votes to protect against tyranny of the majority
>
>is analogous to the arguments
>
>2)Black people neede extra votes to protect against tyranny of the majority.
>
>I oppose both positions, but am pointing that there is a better argument for point number two than point number one. It's not going to be fun to argue with you if it takes you this long to get my points.

Gar,

Well, then if you are more concerned about exceeding your ability to be patient then I suppose you really would do youself a service to remove yourself from the discussion. I am comfortable with your limitations. <g>

Having said that I find it interesting that on one hand we all seem to clamor for the 'one man - one vote' 'Democratic' position and then we immediately discard that so-called standard for a politically correct change to the 'standard'.

Which will it be, one man one vote, equally for all or a non-ending series of politically driven modifications which will at the end of the day satisfy no one?

For me it's neither. I believe that 'one man - one vote', in the sense of having a nationwide election for President in this case, absolutely and utterly violates the basic notions that this Republic was founded upon. I do not wish to confuse this issue with the one you raise, ie. attempting to artificially discriminate in the name of anti-discrimination. IOW, to use an old 'saw', two wrongs do not make a right.