|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | |
JULY 19, 2004
Voting: It's The Numbers, Not The Locale, That Count I thought "Does your vote matter?" (Cover Story, June 14) was generally very thought provoking. I have trouble understanding the logic of some of the letters in reply. (Readers Report, July 5). Darel J. Coterel of Prattville, Ala., wrote in support of the Electoral College, pointing out that Al Gore's win was largely based on vote totals in California and New York and in a big part, from -- horrors -- Los Angeles and New York City. "There is no way I want the values of two major cities to dictate national policy to the rest of the nation," Coterel wrote. All well and good, but who does Coterel believe should dictate national policy? Casper, Wyo.? Charleston, S.C.? Appleton, Wis.? Perhaps Prattville, Ala.? I'm puzzled why voters in those and any other U.S. cities should have any more right to "dictate policy" than those in Los Angeles and New York. Reader Doug Boehler of Bangor, Pa., tells us we need the Electoral College because otherwise we'd have mob rule, and Boehler certainly knows what that means: "If the popular vote of the 'mob' elected the President, New York and California would always elect a President for the whole country," Boehler pronounces. I wonder how Boehler's "mob rule" theory would have worked in the 1976 election, when New York went for Jimmy Carter and California for Gerald Ford, and also 1988, when California went to George H.W. Bush and New York to Michael Dukakis. Kind of blows the theory when the two states don't always vote the same way. We in Pennsylvania, with a population of something over 12 million, have two U.S. senators. The five smallest states, with a combined population less than ours, have a total of 10 senators. Add in New York, and we get a staggering four senators for 30 million people. (California gets even fewer for its 30 million-plus.) Sure, we get more votes in the House, but the House doesn't pass bills by itself. Smaller states also get a higher percentage of Electoral College votes, compared with Pennsylvania, than their populations justify. I'm really in no hurry to change the Constitution, but please spare those of us in the dreaded "elitist" East that rhetoric about votes counting less in small states. David Thompson Waynesboro, Pa. 
| | |
 Copyright 2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
