Hello again Ross. You made some interesting points, but I still tend to think
that regardless of which system is used, EC or DPV, there are always going to
be winners and losers.

Earlier, you mentioned the issue of political apathy, and contended that it
would be worse if we switched over to a Direct Popular Vote, because the
larger populated states would trounce the smaller states every time. While
that may possibly be true, is it really any different now?

What I mean by that is that even now there is a great deal of political apathy
in the USA. Why? Because after decades of seeing nothing really change, and in
fact, only grow worse, a lot of people have given up and think to themselves
"Why even vote? My vote means nothing. The rich and the powerful will put into
office whoever they want, regardless of what I think, or who I want."

As I said earlier, it is always Big Money that wins the election, and with
Obama we have seen it again. I was amazed, but pleased, to see Obama destroy
the Clinton political machine. It was akin to a political miracle, and it goes
to show how with the right powerful, elite backers behind him, even a person
who was a nobody four years ago, can become US president if he or she is
willing to play the game, and have their strings pulled.

In short, we have apathy now because of the grip of the elite and the
powerful, and we would also have some apathy then, if the large states kept
trouncing the smaller ones.

But, there is one important difference: Even if there were to be some apathy
under a DPV system, at least we would know that a president won an election by
the true consent of the people, and that each and every vote truly counted and
was worth something. Can we honestly say that now? No. Current elections are
foregone conclusions. If you have the most money, and the support of the
bankers, you win. Period.

Jeff

--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.0