In article odY1d.299698$Oi.13601@fed1read04,
"Leadfoot" writes:

We now have a system where the candidates only care about votes in 14 of 50
states. IS THIS A GOOD IDEA????

Yes.

If we went to a strict popularity contest (Popular vote only) we'd have
a system where only 6 or 7 out of 50 States count - (And not even all
ovf those - The areas that would dominate are a few cities and their
suburbs) IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? Hell, no! Especially when one considers
that these urban areas are net resource sinks - they don't produce
enough of anything to survive, and are dependant an the rest of the
Nation. Giving them unconstrained power to do as they will is a Really
Bad Idea. Think of the conditions that led to the downfall of Rome.
It wouldn't be much different at all.

The Electoral College is a very clever scheme to weight things such
that the rest of teh country gets a voice. It's still largely
weighted by population, but the poetion of the Electoral votes that
are tied to a States existance ('bout 19%) provide a damper on the
dangers of Tyrrany of the Majority. The balance is such that the
Electoral Vote follows the Popular Vote in the main - until the race
is too close to reliably call. It then applies just enough feedback
to prevent the possibility of someone seizing power by only influencing
a few Political Machines (As, indeed existed back in the days of the
Articles of Confederation) to swing his way.

The good news is there is an advantage for some of us as we don't get
inundated with crap campaign commercials on TV

The even better news is that my vote counts more than yours. That's
not a slap at you, personally. It means that we end up with a nation
of equal Citizens - not denizens of a few over-populated conurbations
milking the productive parts of the Nation.

The Founding Fathers wer clever folks.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster