> America's electoral process protects the minority. If you think politicians would care as much about the folks in Tennessee, Colorado or Oklahoma without our current system as they do with it, you're kidding yourself.

If we had a straight majority vote in this country, campaigning candidates wouldn't even *visit* Tennessee, let alone care about what any of its people think. Howard, if you're going to be against the electoral college, I hope you're prepared to move.

The ten most highest populated urban areas of the United States comprise about 40% of its population. While these cities all have their differences, generally speaking people in urban areas have needs and interests as a group that are distinct and divergent from those in rural areas. With a straight majority vote, politicians will only need to cater to the urban areas (on close issues, straggling votes from rural areas will put them well over the top), and 95%+ of this nations geographic areas, all of which are crucial to maintain this nation's continued economy and self-sufficiency have effectively lost their representation in government. You might recall that a war was once fought over this kind of problem.

The beauty of the electoral system is that it prevents the tyranny of the majority without allowing a tyranny of the minority. To get elected, you have to have balanced support from both the nation's individuals *and* the nation's geographic centers and associated industries.

--

This is the last thread of this kind that I'm going to allow here. Talk freely in *this* thread if you like. But I'm pretty sick to death of how the same off-handed embittered remarks about the 2000 election keep cropping up in here. Bush won. Let's get over it and move on.