] I've always been a rather staunch small-'c' conservative
] when it comes to the federal constitution. The fact that
] we now have a 27th amendment covering the weighty and
] statecraft-worthy issue of how congress can raise its
] salary strikes me as close to a secular sacrilege. But
] I'm starting to warm to the idea of abolishing the
] electoral college.

[ Marshall tosses around some thoughts on the matter and reiterates that he's in a thinking out loud mode, looking more to start a discussion than to advocate a major position. I offer the article up to this community with the same desire, as it's an issue i've put some thought into as well.

I tend to think, simply, that the EC is antiquated and no longer necessary. I understand the concerns about small states, and I'm not sure I agree with JMM that the current solidly partisan nature of these places is a reason to minimize the issue. They could become competitive someday, after all. I do agree that their disproportionate representation in congress alleviates some of my concern.

Primarily though, I'm against anything which systematically discourages voting. A lot of people would say that's absurd and people who care should vote regardless of how solidly their state is colored, and I certainly agree in principle. But I can't help thinking that there are millions of people in the country who just don't consider their vote to be relevant. I have no data to suggest that a purely popular vote (or any other system, like condorcet or instant runoff) would benefit one party or the other, so I don't consider it a partisan issue. It's an issue of enfranchisement, and making people feel that their voice can and will be heard. Trust in the physical security of our elections is a big part of that too, from paper trails to code audits, but the simple fact of increasing the individual relevance of a vote seems like a huge positive step to me. -k]