"Issodhos @aol.com" wrote:

> In a message dated 12/12/00 2:26:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> > the below is a strange comment for a person who SHOULD be
> >  supporting democracy.
> >  w
> >  >
> >  > In a message dated 12/11/00 10:04:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> >  > [log in to unmask] writes:
> >  >
> >  > > Re the subject line, the latest totals put Gore ahead by 524,000 votes,
> >  > >  after final totals from NY came in.
> >  >
> >  >      Ahead in what, a contest for Mr. Congeniality?  There is no national
> >  > popular vote in the USA.
> >  > Yours.
> >  > Issodhos
> >  >
>
>    So you find that a truthful statement somehow subverts democracy, William?
> Yours,
> Issodhos

A truthful statement does not subvert democracy.  The Electoral College system
(with help from the US Supreme Court) subverts democracy.
    Here is something I wrote a few days ago:
    LL

> We have states - therefore citizens -
> whose power over the selection of the head of the executive branch exceeds their

> proportion of the population.  Why does a citizen of Wyoming deserve more votes
> in national affairs than me?  This is a _national election_ .  What about my
interests as a citizen (for the sake
> of argument) of a populous state?
>     And we have the case where a 51% majority of a state's population elects
100%
> of that state's presidential electors.  Do the 49% deserve representation?
> Should the majority of a nation's citizens get to choose the chief executive of
> that nation?  Certainly direct democracy is impossible, but what level of
> dilution of democracy is desirable to freedom loving people?  The nationwide
> popular vote is irrelevant, that's what the Electoral College is for.  The
> Electoral College exists to dilute democracy.
> Larry Libby