About 80 messages since yesterday, I am
impressed! I was going to stay out of this whole thing, but
after seeing Josh's post, I must toss in my two
cents.
I currently like the current setup of the Electoral
College. By having Wyoming, DC, Delaware, and Montana with
3 votes, and the host of others with 4 & 5, it
means that a candidate cannot ignore them. By having a
system of only the house, theoretically you would win
the Presidency if you win 9 states
(CA,FL,IL,MI,NY,OH,PA,TX; plus one of 13 others). I want the vote of the
people in the smaller states to count for
something.
One other thing has crossed my mind while watching
the results. It seems like California pushed Gore
over Bush in the Popular Count. I wonder what the
result yesterday would have they been using the future
E.C. count with the 2000 Census (i.e., the count for
2004). California, among others, most likely gains a
spot or two, while some other Northern and Midwestern
states will most likely lose. It will be interesting to
do the math once they do redistricting.
David