Exactly, JT, Norman. It concerns me that there will likely be an attempt to replace our Electoral College with this model or something similar. ________ I believe the Electoral College system was chosen with the intention of keeping our national elections sound. I believe it is the key reason that our election process has served us so well. (It can also be more easily scrutinized and allows more accountability.) Now, with that I should say to naysayers....the quality of our election process is not contingent upon whether or not our candidate wins or loses. The success of our election process is dependent upon the integrity of the process. That integrity and the appropriate representation of the people of each state can best be served by the method our founders chose for that very purpose........the Electoral College system. Proportional vote tallies are not the way to go ...such a method cannot ensure the integrity Americans deserve. It opens the door to an increased opportunity for abuse. Moreover, it changes the EC system to something other than our founders intended. Even slight alternations can affect the nature and outcome of the process. We should do nothing to taint the integrity of the established process/system. ________Forgive me, JT and others, for my jumping on the soapbox again on this issue. It amazes me that so many would consider altering our election process....that there is any significant acceptance of such proposals. That so many have become willing to even consider abandoning vital principles of something so very core to our liberty is stunning. The issue of changing our EC process should be labeled with a huge red flag.

Well, I don't like the Dem way because it lacks merit. Obama is winning many more states and is winning big in differntial, but on has a slim lead in delegates. How is that possible? If what Judie says is her belief, than the crushing majority should favor Obama by a huge margin. As it stands, he barely has a lead. Now, we hear of back room deals to count Michigan and Florida as a 'contingency' if Clinton doesn't win. How shady is that? The Republican way is similar to that of the general election. If you win the state, then you get the votes (electoral in the general). This proportion stuff doesn't reflect the majority will of the people. Before you think it, I'm not Dem or GOP because both parties have seen better days. Be an independent thinker instead of voting between brands of dog food. Say what? Well, I don't eat dog food, so choosing between the different brands wouldn't make a difference, I still won't eat dog food. What I'm saying is make up your own mind and not what someone tells you to do, be independent.

Oops..Deann, that may have been as clear as mud!! =) _________ I knew I didn't have time to make comment! Well...I may have muddied the water more. Okay...I'll try again!! ________The distribution the Democratic party used seemed to align with your vision for the Electoral College. The distribution the Republican party used aligned with mine. I believe that there is some correlation in the method the Republican Party used to that of States Rights. I contend, just as our founders' did, that each state's voice should be heard in the general election. The distribution used by the Republican Party to assign delegates in the primary appears to be the same model used in assigning electors in the general election. I feel it is preferable. I feel the purpose of an election is to select a winner. In this instance, the stakes were for the nomination for the office of the presidency. This could have been done by the delegates at the convention, but the primaries offer opportunity for so many more to influence that nomination. However, it still seems that the process should result in a winner. The method the Republican Party did achieve that end. The method the Democratic Party did not. It narrowed the field, but most everyone knew before the election was held that the two top contenders were exactly that and there would be little chance a lessor candidate could redirect that course. The election is over and what do we have...on the Republican side, we have the candidate. On the Democratic side, we still have the top two contenders, still in a heated race to secure the nomination. So...what, after all, was the purpose of the election? It did not establish a decisive victory for the Democratic Party. The expense involved in this process seems rather unwarranted and rather pointless given that distribution method. Oops! That's more about why I agree or disagree with the distribution than offering any real correlation. __________Okay... back to the Electoral College. For me, Deann, there is correlation. I think it is because I recall some of the comments in our "conversation" about the Electoral College those long months ago. My prior post..which was unclear...makes mention of that discussion and I think that if you are willing to wade through my comments, maybe that part of them is somewhat clear. Please remember, that the Electoral College was not chosen casually with a great intention. Please recall that many states were reluctant to join the Union because they did not wish to forfeit the rights which were belonged to them by virtue of their separate statehood. The Electoral College afforded them the ability to retain their separate voice in the election of the president of the United States. That was important and had it not been for the Electoral College, many states would have refused to join in and take a place in the Union. I contend that ability is still important and should remain the right of each state. Moreover, I feel that to abandon that process breaks the covenant which was used to help entice their entry into it. That may not seem importnat to many of you today. However, it is really very important that each state retains the power the Electoral College affords them. ________David, Crescent, if you are reading...please offer comments. Thank you.__________Deann, this may not be any better. Apologies...I don't feel my post was clear, but I must stop for now. Thanks again for pointing out the lack of correlation. Take care!

Judie, if David,Crescent does comment on the Electoral College at some point in the future, it is my hope that you will have the opportunity to read his comments. Perhaps he can successfully convey the most basic and important of reasons why this system of election was chosen by the founders and why it is still a vitally important and viable system that this nation needs to retain. He might now sway you, but that's okay! =) ________ Judie, I agree with you when you say it takes each of us...and I enjoy our interaction so much that I am eager for you to hear something I think is important and relevant. Cheers!

Judie, I didn't mean that the nation should focus on the Republican party. _________Deann, maybe you will recall, as I did, very lengthy and intense exchange of dialogue you and I had some months ago on the Electoral College. But, perhaps you do not recall that my strong advocacy for the retention of the Electoral College has everything to do with States Rights. I really don't have time to properly or adequately expand on this now. However, I understand that my comment might have seemed irrelevant. Even so...it was because we were discussing the distribution the Democratic Party used in the primary and that distribution brought to my mind some of your comments of our former interaction in regard to the Electoral College that I applied that correlation. That was the basis for my finding some relevance to distribution of delegates and my advocacy of states' right. I recalled that you advocate abandoning our present Electoral College process. If I remembered correctly, it seems to me that you stated you would be willing to retain the Electoral College if it used what I believe to be a similar distribution in assigning electors as was used in this election. You may recall I did not support that concept in regard to the Electoral College. You may or may not recall that I have many reasons which combine in my unwavering support for the Electoral College System. (I just don't have that kind of time right now. Besides we exhausted ourselves on the issue!) ___-You may recall, I hope you do, that David,Crescent offered some real insight...important insight... into that quandary. It is my hope that he will relay the information again on this forum __________Again, Deann, I can understand why you failed to see the correlation. Moreover, I am pleased that you brought it to attention. Surely, most who read here would not understand how I came to that conclusion. Maybe you will actually be one who can understand ...now that you now where my thoughts were taking me. Thank you!

C, PV. What does the Republican method of selecting delegates have to do with States Rights? I just don't see it. (Not meaning to be ugly, I just can't see the correlation.)

I still believe that the popular vote should elect the President and that a distribution of delegates reflects that more precisely. We need to say the country needs to concentrate more on important matters rather than just the Republican party.

I believe the Republican method is cleaner...more precise...and results in less loss of "blood." Now that party can get on with more importnat matters.

Not completely satisfied with the distribution. __--I feel the Republican distribution is the correct way to distribute delegates. There are a number of reasons I feel that way. For one, if the expanded expense of launching early campaigns for the presidency is to achieve its purpose, the candidates should be clearly and decisively chosen via the majority election process...and while adhering to the concept of states rights. We now know that John McCain will be the Republican nominee. The outcome is still up in the air on the Democratic side and much wasted time and money and an excess of mud slinging will continue on. It seems counterproductive in many ways to have early primaries if the result is not conclusive. It seems it might be better to simply wait until the convention to take care of the business of choosing the candidate. The delegates representing each state could then cast the ballots as their caucuses indicated. ____- I firmly believe in the concept of states rights. I cannot advocate such a distribution when it comes to the electoral college.

"more fair than"

The Democratic proportional distribution is much more fair to the Republican one. McCain barely beat Huckabee, but McCain was given far more delegates.

What judie said!

I definitely agree! Now if the electoral college could just work the same way.