Unrelated to that last entry, and on a more serious note, tonight's Astrogirl reminded me that I'd just had a similar thought to hers.

Don't vote the lesser of two evils. Don't not vote. Go vote, and vote your heart and mind. If you believe in Woody or Shrub, by all means go vote for them, but don't vote for one of them because you think he'll do the least harm.

The system isn't going to get changed until it's shown not to work. It's most likely that whichever one of them "wins" the election will do so without a majority of the popular vote (Clinton didn't have a majority in either '92 or '96). The Electoral College is built so that there's always a clear "winner" in a contest such as this. The problem here is that neither one of the two major party candidates has the support of half the people (who bother to vote) in the country. We have to choose from this?

The reaction in recent elections has been that an ever smaller percentage of the electorate actually vote. So the "winner" will receive the support of less than half of half of the people who have a say (that's less than a quarter of eligible voters, in other words). The rest can't be bothered to vote either way. This is why it's important to realize that voting for a candidate you believe in isn't throwing your vote away at all.

If enough of the disaffected vote their hearts, the Electoral College as we know it will cease to exist as of that election. If the Electoral College fails to nominate a President (if no candidate accumulates a simple majority of Electors), the vote devolves to the House of Representatives, which is sure to vote on party lines -- quite possibly not representing the will of the people at all. Scandal will ensue. If a third party candidate carries a crucial state and the Electors bolt as a result, scandal will ensue.

I'm waiting for the day when neither major party candidate garners more votes than the third party candiates combined. That's a truer representation of the will of the people. Scandal will ensue then too.

(2 nov)