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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (61867)	8/20/2004 1:59:52 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793887

They're probably right. But of course, it doesn't matter. They won't ever get rid of the Electoral College Say what? Except for W, every Republican President this century also won the popular vote. If they are talking about a straight national referendum, there is no reason to think that it would make all that much difference to the election of Republicans. The Electoral College may favor small states over large ones, but if New York and California are large states, so are Texas and Florida.

To: Ilaine who wrote (61867)	8/20/2004 3:35:05 AM
From: t4texas	Respond to of 793887

i would remind all that the house based on population representation and two senators per state and the electoral votes based on the sum of these two are the only way a compromise was reached on the us constitution. without that compromise the constitution would not have happened. as long as there are states i see no way a constitutional amendment could be approved to have popular vote be the only vote. also i recall massachusetts was one of the "small" states that needed the compromise. i am rusty, but this may have been part of madison's virginia plan.