>>One more thing about E.C., I think it makes it very difficult for independent third party to get any meaningful vote. Even if a third candidate gets 20 to 30% of popular vote, he or she may not get a single Electoral Vote...
Maybe Dem and Rep want to monopolize the political powers.<<
WM -
Your point about third party candidates is well taken. But that's the only way in which the Electoral College helps the Democrats.
At the present time, the Electoral College gives the Republicans a definite advantage. Since each state has a minimum of 3 electors, the least populous states, which are mostly Republican, are disproportionally represented.
In Wyoming, for example, one elector represents roughly 73,000 voters. In California, there is one elector for more than 200,000 voters. (These numbers are based on the 2000 election.) Thus, each vote in Wyoming is nearly three times more powerful. That, to me, is a clear violation of the principle of "one person, one vote."
Since Republicans hold a majority in Congress, we're not likely to see any change in the Electoral College any time soon. Of course, states are free to choose any manner of selecting electors that pleases them, so there could be a movement toward proportional allocation. But that is unlikely to happen in Democratic states, since it would only give a further advantage to the Republicans, and also not likely in Republican states, where they would be giving away their advantage.
- Allen |
