Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ratan lal who wrote (118734)	11/21/2000 3:03:36 PM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Ratan: The problem with a popular vote election is that you have to get the constitution amended period. To do that, you need 38 states to approve it (75% or overall amount). That means that a mere 13 states can stop any admendment from being ratified. The lowest population states like Wyoming, Alaska, etc., have a vested interest in the current system and will fight anything that diminishes their power. If a popular vote election is heald then all of the voters in the five biggest states could decide the winner even if, every other state votes 100% for the loser, what reason would the candidates care about the smaller states concerns? Thus, the smallest 13 states would block this (matter of fact a majority of states would block this and their voters would concur once it is explained to them) and any such admendment would fail. You have a much better chance in getting each state to proportionally allocate its electors by the popular vote in each legislative district (something is always more than nothing) since, this method would also get rid of complainst that the candidates are only fighting over the major urban areas of a state (ie that SF and LA are targetted and you can ever forget any campaign in Shasta county). This also causes the movement of the campaign from safe areas to the contested ones just like this election (Democrats and Republicans would fight in the suburbs because the rural areas goes safely Republican and the heavy urban areas go safely Democratic). In other words, it would be more likely that a party would hold both the Presidency and House of Representatives. The Senate would contain those more helpful to the country as a whole. Pete