Malletman: the EC protects states' rights. If you've got a better plan, lay it out.

If I decide to vote for Candidate X because I think he's going to give me a huge tax break that I know I don't deserve, it that any more immoral? Maybe that should be illegal as well. Or if I vote for a third party candidate, not because I want to see him win, but because I want to cast my vote for more political diversity, is that also immoral?

People choose candidates for a variety of reasons and any encroachment on their freedom of decision is what *I* would find immoral. Just because I might think someone cast a vote for the "wrong" reasons is not enough to make their ability to do so illegal.

A lot more EC votes and proportional splitting among states. Right now, a vote in a state with 3 votes counts a heckuva lot more than one that is above the minimum.

Same deal with proportional splitting, but I think some big states would do well to do this. People in some large states get completely unrepresented. NY is a great example, but even CA has this problem to a small degree. Oddly, it seems it's the smaller states that seem more interested in doing this.

Did Kerry even bother campaigning in CA?

States' rights are supposed to be representative of individual rights. In this case, they take away from individual rights.

Right now I think that EC is the best option we have, and that vote pairing should be done away with. Changing the system is one thing, but cheating it is another, even if it still didn't work.