November 16, 2000
One man one vote
Guive Mirfendereski's article ["Keep
it the way it is"] is very similar to the reasoning I hear these
days by Republicans against the popular vote. Like them, your scare tactic
against the popular vote is targeted towards Democrats.
I agree with you that it is not in the benefit of the Republican Party
to support one man one vote count. This is not because abolishing the present
system "will unravel at its seams", as you tried to picture it,
but because it has so far been in the benefit of Republicans to stay with
the Electroal College system.
Of course your lecture about the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
and the right to bear arms (another Republican favorite) has nothing to
do with this subject. The founding fathers had different reasons than you
mentioned when they decided about this voting system.
Without going into details I have to insist that not only your reasoning
as to why the present election system should continue is incorrect, also
your two reasons as to why an election based on the popular votes would
not work is in error as well.
I would rather not to go into details at this point, although I have
no problem discuss it with you point by point if you would like to (it
seems that I would be in disadvantage since the paper describes you as
a professional lecturer, but my convictions are so strong that I can take
I can also refer you to many publications on the subject if you would
like to know why this system was established by the founding fathers, and
why it is incorrect in this day and age.
The simplest reason that the popular vote is the fairest way is that
it would be inclusive of all the voters in an election. The most progressive
countries in the world have adopted this system. I do not have a certain
political leaning towards Republicans or Democrats, but I strongly believe
in one man one vote.