>Doug --
>
>I'd like to go back to a previous issue on this thread, about the electoral college.
>
>I happen to agree with you about it's value, and scrutinizing very carefully any change. It is true, as many have noted, that it was developed at a time when social and economic conditions were much different than now.
>
>But, I suggest that it has become a critical aspect of our political system. I emphasize the word "system". Any system has problems -- it's the nature of systems. But, systems also resolve a lot of problems -- usually problems much more significant than those that it causes. By changing one seemingly small aspect of a system, you can inadvertantly cause a much greater change in the entire system -- the law of unintended consequences.
>
>What would happen if we abolished the electoral college and went to election by popular vote?
>
>My suspicion is that it would immediately undermine the two party system. 20 years down the road, we'd probably have not only significant 3rd parties, but probably 10th and 11th parties. Like a Sunday in the NFL, any party could conceivably win the presidential election.
>
>Now, I don't think that would necessarily be a problem in itself. People would no doubt feel more connected to the political process through a party that represented their social, economic, religioius or cultural background. I think that would be positive.
>
>But, it's quite possible that the more extreme parties would mobilize their people more than that in the middle. It's much more likely that we would elect a Pat Robertson or a Barney Frank in such a situation, than under our current system. And, that person, by gaining the plurality of votes, would serve as president for 4 years. It's that scenario that I believe the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid.
>
>If we abolish the electoral college, I think we have to anticipate a systemic change and go with a parliamentarian form of government. Otherwise, let's keep it!

Jay,

I'd agree that abolishing the Electoral College is very short sighted.