"Should the Electoral College be Replaced by the Popular Vote?"

Created by our Founding Fathers, the college was designed to protect the interests of a small group of states with widely divergent interests, and the balance of power between the presidency and Congress. Following our War of Independence, the original states were especially suspicious of a central government, which made a system based on the ideals of classic republics, such as the Roman Republic, make sense to our founders. To them this system provided presidents with a strong mandate for governing based on broad geographic support between large and small states, and a means for strengthening the two party system.
 
Does this system still makes sense for our democracy. Consider.....
•Winners of the presidency may not receive the popular vote: 3 presidents were elected without it, including Rutherford Hayes, Benjamin Harrison and George W. Bush.
• 18 presidents did not receive popular majorities, including Abraham Lincoln, who had only 40% of the vote.
• In 1980, Reagan had 50% of the popular vote and 91% of the electoral vote.
• In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton had only 43% and 49% of the popular vote, with 69% and 70% of the electoral vote.
Some say the electoral college is no longer relevant and should be banned in as it discourages voter turnout and presents a bias against 3rd party candidates.  What do you think?  Please come and join the debate if you're interested. There is a great deal of information on the Internet to bring you up to date. http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
 
Date: Saturday, September 27

Time: 7 - 9pm

Place:
Mary Lou and Gary Kravetz
 

Dessert, wine and coffee (no charge)

Contact Laura McCormick if interested. A limited number of people can be accommodated (approx. 10 - 12 cars only) so reply early and indicate how many will be in your car or if you will be car-pooling. Laura will confirm your participation in a return email with directions to Gary and Mary Lou's home.