A better way to elect a president Chicago Tribune Editorial

Chicago Tribune ^ | November 7, 2004 | Chicago Tribune

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

No small state is going to ratify an amendment which permanently makes it irrelevant to the rest of the country.

Living in a state where the votes from ONE city effectively cancels out all the other votes cast in the state I agree.

Every election we have our noses rubbed in the fact that what this one city wants, it gets and the rest of us are just so many peasants. We are more likely to vote to adopt a state electoral college system then vote to get rid of the national one.

[Fiddlstix]

Democrat motto "If you can't win using the Constitution, CHANGE IT!"

BINGO!

[AUsome Joy]

The presidency is the only election that is voted on by all the people across the nation. The electoral college is there to save the less populous states from being run over by the most populous states. The Senate seats, etc, are voted by the people of each state for that particular state. Give me a break!! How would you have electors for each senate seat?? The thinking in this article is poppycock.

[Ruth C]

That would be great for California. The president would have picked up a few electoral votes there for sure.

[DakotaGator]

For the most part their senators do not speak for them, they speak and act for the urban areas which are the areas where they get the majority of their money to get re-elected.

Well said!