Actually,, I am not really sure exactly what the reason was they formed the electoral collage... Probably had it in Civics class at some point.. But I seem to remember that it had somewhat to do with not having complete 100 % trust in the individual voters... and also they perhaps wanted to arrange things sorta like the house of representatives is arranged.. to distribute the "weight" of the states out so that one heavily area of the country wouldnt be able to totally dominate the results. Course that was back when New York was the only heavily populated state.. California was still in Mexican hands. I dont think the intention had anything to do with the indifference... but I wouldnt be suprised that the resistance to getting rid of it touches on this issue. Kristinn Leifsson wrote: > Hi Richard, > > So does that mean the electoral college is intended to suit the > indifference in the nation? > If this were changed to a popular vote maybe thereŽd be some interest in > voting in the U.S. > > Kristinn > > At 15:43 11.11.2000 +0100, you wrote: > >Which means that 17.2 % of American voters elected him. And folks wonder > >why they have an electoral collage...:) > > > >"Berley A. Firmin II" wrote: > > > > > "Clinton won 43% of the popular vote...." > > > He got 43% of the 40%of the people who ACTUALLY voted. > > > >-- > >Richard Brekne > >RPT, N.P.T.F. > >Bergen, Norway -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC