Electoral College = OUTDATED

Well since there was at least one disagreement on Friday with my comment about Electoral College being "outdated", here's further reasons why I think the process should be changed:

1) Electors can change their mind at their own free will - if one person has that kind of power to change their vote (yes, it has happened - 158 times actually! And as recent as 2004 in Minnesota, probably by accident, but still it happened!) what is the point of voting anyway?

2) The College discourages votes in non-swing states. This means a republican in NY/Massachusetts has little motivation to vote other than to exercise his right as an American. Or a democrat in Texas/Utah not really having a chance. It also makes the independent vote incapable of having a chance. Ross Perot actually carried a lot of votes total (19%) but no electoral college votes so his efforts to create a strong 3rd party were lost. Discouraging people from voting should be punishable by prison time as that is the opposite of what we need our government to do - encourage and make it easier for people to become involved and vote to get a "true" representation.

3) Because of some states being "extreme red" or "extreme blue", the candidates don't do any campaigning in those states. Those residents lose out in opportunities to see and hear the candidates in person to develop a better opinion. The poor residents of the swing states have to listen to countless political advertisements which only draws people away from the process!

4) Electoral votes in most states are all or none (unlike the primaries). So a state that has a large amount of Electoral votes (Florida) that is settled by a few votes (537 votes out of almost 6 million cast!... that's a difference of about 0.00895%), the winner gets all 25 electoral votes rather than the 50% that was actually won. How many other elections work this way?

5) The College was set up to give the "small states" a better say in the government. But think about this.... In 2004, Florida had 27 Electoral college votes. If you add the electoral votes of the following 9 states (Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Montana, DC, Delaware, Idaho) there are 28 Electoral college votes. In 2004, the 9 states mentioned before had approximately 3.2 million votes. Florida had 7.6 million votes. So the smaller states say this way they get heard, but I see it as 4.4 million people in Florida got shafted with their votes.

How come we don't vote for governor, senators, congressmen/women in the same manner? Just seems like yet again, it's not allowing for a true representation of the voters as a whole. You could make the same vote in a lot of states like Minnesota where the popular vote favors the metropolis in the Twin Cities which dominate the total population of the state. So why not take out part of their dominance vote and allow all the counties a certain number of electoral votes.

I present my case and welcome any discussion. Remember, it's a sin of the government (candidates, electing officials, or whomever) to discourage voting ANYWHERE! You'll never win that argument with me.

Haiku of the Day
My new countdown shows
Bush's days left in office
as three seven two [372]

Entertainment of the Day - Despite what felt like a Tom Hanks weekend on cable (The Green Mile, The Da Vinci Code), I found time to watch even more movies.... 3:10 to Yuma is a remake but still a western. Not my favorite genre, I'll be honest. It's ok - Christian Bale will now be Batman in every movie though to me, not a western gunslinger type. Russell Crowe doesn't fit the western look either... was waiting for him to pull out a shield and sword like in Gladiator and start kicking everyone's ass! Anyway - 3:10 Till I Fall Asleep (in minutes) wasn't worth watching.

Weblink of the Day - An online version of "follow the card"... gets tricky at $50, and gets outright ridiculous after $75! I hit $90 before I failed. Wait for the random french fries coming on the screen:)