> Before I dive in, I'd just like to express a moment's amusement at the number of conservative political commentators who were decrying the electoral college when they thought that Bush would win the popular vote, and are supporting it now that Gore has. I'm not accusing Sam of this, naturally, since I don't recall him ever talking about it before.

I had supported the Electoral College before this election, so I'm safe. Whew. However, I remain in the position that the electors should be required by law to vote the will of their state.

The Democrats are just as bad. They were previously favoring the Electoral College, and now that the reverse has happened -- Gore won the popular vote but is losing the electoral vote -- the Democrats are harping on "the will of the people" in their protests of "voting irregularities" in Florida.

> Debatable. Particularly considering the non-uniform size of the states. Are the people in Rhode Island -really- so different from other people in the country?

How much of a difference does it take to matter? Rhode Island actually *isn't* all that different than Connecticut, but I'm not defending every specific existing state division, just the principle of statehood. A better example is New Hampshire vs. Massachusetts, which I've mentioned here before several times. New Hampshire is very conservative (made more liberal in recent years due to Mass influence in the more populated south; however, in spite of the close race here this past election, our state laws are among the most conservative in the nation), and Massachusetts is very liberal. Were we one state, our laws and government would be liberal in nature, because Mass, with Boston plus a number of other cities bigger than ANY in New Hampshire, would dominate the people's vote. And that's wrong. The people of New Hampshire have very little connection, with regard to the way they want themselves to be governed, with Massachusetts. So why should either be forced under the other's rule? I'd say the same thing about Mass if it were New Hampshire with the greater population. Although I am conservative, it's perfectly fine with me if Mass is liberal. I don't live there.

On the flip side, some state divisions are missing. California's halves seem to be always at odds. A great many from both the north and south agree that they don't have much to do with each other. It's a strain and a bit of an injustice for them to be constantly at war with each other over the way they govern themselves. Split it up, and then both sides can be happy. I can only IMAGINE the chaos and resentment that would occur if the East Coast were made up of just three states. Making Massachusetts and North Carolina opposite ends of the same state would have catastrophic effects on the people's ability to govern themselves in the manner that they are happy with.

I didn't previously know much about Oregon's social climate, but if what the RinkFolk from there tell me is accurate, the same problem exists with Oregon's west and east halves.

> This has not exactly helped the U.S. out in the past. Allowing the states so many rights in terms of producing their own laws allowed legalized racism to flourish for several additional decades, for instance...

I'm not convinced that's a correct assessment.

> and has led so such absurdities as gay people being able to get married only in specific states.

Is that bad? Some communities have come out and established their support of such a lifestyle; others have come out and decided they don't want to support it. No matter which side of the fence you're on, I can't imagine anyone could possibility think a federal ruling either way would be preferable. Would you prefer a federal ruling against gay marriages? Even a ruling allowing it is an implicit moral/religious call that should be more closely tied to the will of the people than any federal law can be. But let's say your position is that NOT allowing gay marriages is itself IMMORAL. Which scenario would you prefer? (1) States have legal power; consequently, gay marriages are allowed in some states; thus, gays who wish to marry sometimes must do so in another state from their local residents. They can still do so. (2) Have status quo be that federal ruling is against gay marriages (because we all started out disallowing them [somebody correct me if I'm wrong]), and hope that a politician the *federal* eye, with a LOT more people to worry about alienating than anyone does on the state level, is brave enough to risk his political career by overturning it and expressly permitting gay marriages.

Like I said, I don't see that it much matters which side of the issue you're on for state's rights to be the right way to go here.

> Actually, the electoral college was originally set up to prevent the unwashed masses from electing a popular but foolish president. States' rights are a secondary consideration.

Purpose does not matter; only the effect.