On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Doug Henwood wrote:
> As Dan Lazare pointed out on my radio show last night, since the EC
> magnifies the vote of smaller states, it would be unimaginable that a
> sufficient number would agree to a consitituional amendment
> eliminating the EC.
That's the company line, that you can never abolish the electoral college because the smallest 13 states will always vote against it. But I don't think this holds up to scrutiny. The smallest 13 states by population voted 6 for Gore and 7 for Bush (and one of the Bush States was New Hampshire, one of the two states where the Nader vote was bigger than the margin.) So under the electoral college, half those states get screwed if Bush gets elected. And it could just as easily have gone the other way, since the most common scenario before the vote was that Bush wins the popular vote and Gore wins the electoral college. So I completely fail to see how voters in small states are advantaged.
As for the kindred arguments that small states are advantaged under federalism and will never give that up, those advantages have nothing to do with the electoral college. They are anchored in the Senate -- which, as you and he point out, is never going anywhere.
So I don't see any insuperable obstacles to a concerted campaign here. I can see why the establishment runs this line -- they don't want change and they want to induce defeatism. But for Lazare, on the other hand, majority voting is one of the things he'd most like to see; ranking voting and instant run-offs are the closest we'll ever come to a parliamentary system; and I would think any monkeying with the constitution that would simply tarnish its sanctity would cheer him up immensely. So I can't understand why he's folding without even looking at his cards. Especially when history has dealt us a such rare hand.
Michael
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com