William, could you explain to me how you think that the interests of the
wealthy would have been affected if George W. Gore was elected by a
direct plurality of the votes rather than by the electoral college?
Please note in your answer that neither of them even received a majority
of the votes cast, let alone majority endorsement by the eligible
electors, or of the general population (taking account of the huge
disenfranchisement of African Americans arising from criminal
convictions).  Would a direct election have neutralized the tens of
millions of dollars contributed to Al Bush by corporate America?  If
not, then what is your point about preferring direct elections to the
electoral college?  I must be missing it.  Or would it still be a case
of Gipper, Tipper or Zipper? Dan

William Meecham wrote:

> The electoral college, roundly maligned before this god send
> to the losing Bush was set in place for two reasons:
>
> To guarantee that the wealthy men who set up this country retained
> control, without disturbing dem. outcomes.
>
> To aid in the maintaining of slavery: Va. got a great boost in
> its population because it counted Africans as 60% human (I suppose
> one could grant that that was at least something).
> \w