>
>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.
the goal would be to get people to see that "their" vote for their state gets them nothing. why play the game on their terms--where their vote is a block vote with "their" state--as if that is somehow democratic. or, expose what it *does* get them: most everything they hate about the federal government.
the only chance we have of moving toward proportional representation is getting rid of the e.c. so rolling over on this, as michael says, is a bit premature, *especially* when public opinion is against the e.c is on a roll.
next: get rid of the Senate! (where, by the way, all e.c. reform usually dies)
kelley
kelley