Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site denelcor.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!denelcor!lmc From: lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: Electoral college Message-ID: <622@denelcor.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Dec-84 19:55:56 EST Article-I.D.: denelcor.622 Posted: Wed Dec 12 19:55:56 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 14-Dec-84 05:40:57 EST References: <204@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA> <4099@elsie.UUCP> <204@harvard.ARPA> Organization: Denelcor, Aurora, Colorado Lines: 20 > > The major argument that remains for the Electoral College is to prevent one > > region of the country from forcing a popular regional candidate on the rest > > of the nation. > > So? If Area X loves Candidate Y, and they have more people than there > are in other areas (or at least add enough votes to those of the rest of > the country to elect Candidate Y), why shouldn't that person be elected? > Historically, the real reason is that there was no other way to get enough votes for the original constitution in the Continental Congress (?) except to compromise. Many small colonies felt that populous Virginia would rule the nation, so they refused to sign until the Senate was set up to protect low-population states. The electoral college serves the same function, since the number of votes is the sum of the number of senators and representatives. Without this compromise the constitution would not have had enough votes to go into effect; thereafter inertia and political conservatism kept the electoral college there. -- Lyle McElhaney {hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc