>> From: Alexander Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [EM] Electoral College and Minority Vetoes
>> >I can't see that there's much difference between allowing a >> >minority to exercise power against the popular will on the >> >one hand, and giving them the veto on the other. >> I'm taking a lemon and trying to make lemonade. The rule >> of equal representation in the Senate for every state is >> fixed. The Constitution says that it can only be changed >> with the unanimous consent of the states (it's the only >> type of amendment that requires more than 3/4 of the >> states). Conversely, the EC can be eliminated if 3/4 of >> the states agree. I'm sorry, I can't see the connection. I really can't see how prevailing in saying "no" is all that different from preventing others from saying "yes". For example, we are stopped from eliminating the EC because of veto. How is that different from saying that the minority is forcing us to use it, except by reference to what is already in place? Just a small observation. It may just be a matter of looking at things from a slightly different angle, not an actual difference at all. >> So, since we're stuck with this rather undemocratic >> institution, let's at least find a silver lining if we >> can. Conversely, the EC would be much easier to repeal, >> so I'm drawing a distinction for why it's worse. >> Alex Small
