If the basic idea behind elections is that the person with the plurality of votes wins, the electoral college is unnecessary.

Regardless of the original intent for its inclusion in our Constitution, the electoral college can skew the outcome of the winner of the plurality. Now, some like that and obviously others don't; isn't the point that the plurality winner gets to take office?

When discussing the abolishment of the college, extremely complex arguments are presented(some of which I actually understand); all these arguments seem to me to obscure the point: did the person who won the most votes win the election?

I live in a large state but that didn't get Gore elected in 2000, even though he won here.(California)Bush didn't win Florida either, but Bush still was appointed President. What's fair about that?

Small states are supposed to like the college because it represents their interests. Do small states really vote any differently than the big states? Does it really make any difference?

Frankly I'm feeling disenfranchised. I live in a blue state, have always voted blue, yet I and my fellow blue voters, who actually voted for the candidate who got the most votes ( in 2000) got screwed. What's fair about that?

Save your sophisticated arguments about the electoral college and let's just have fair elections. One person, one vote. I can live with that.

I am struck by how much criticism is leveled at people in authority: politicians, generals and corporate chieftains.

Sometimes the criticism is right, but my point is how we forget that the context, or system in which these people operate, always trumps personal values.

There are many studies which corroborate this fact. The Stanford prison experiment in 1972 had to be canceled after 6 days, even though it was scheduled for 14 days. The reason: otherwise normal, even liberal students started becoming sadistic. Even the professor conducting the study couldn't see it happening; his girlfriend had to intervene.

And for any of us working in corporations - or any hierarchical organization - it is necessary to be politic or appropriate.

Doesn't that require that we must hold our tongue or think very carefully about leveling criticism? Of course it does.

I happen to believe that Hillary Clinton is well qualified to be president. Does she measure her words? You bet. Does she look at the polls and use the information to tailor her message? You bet.

I believe her behavior is precisely what any good politician would do in similar circumstances. If you like constantly tilting at windmills, just look at all the losing politicians. Should Mrs. Clinton campaign that way - and lose?

My comments do not mean that Hillary Clinton is perfect - but who would be? So long as the electorate (which includes all of us) insists on their own idea of perfection, candidates will tailor their message to be as attractive and inoffensive as possible. Why?: the context or system demands it.

It takes tremendous courage to buck the system and few do it.

Politicians, more than most people, know this fact very well and most are very careful as to where and when they will take on the status quo.

My challenge to all of you who think otherwise: try running for office or running a corporation or being a salesperson. My opinion-I don't think you'd be so courageous(or foolhardy) to constantly buck the system any more than those currently in power.

Matthew 7:4&5 "Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own? You hypocrite! First take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's." The New English Bible, Cambridge University Press 1971

This quote, taken from the Sermon on the Mount, is surely one of the most important teachings of Jesus. For Christians of all persuasions, this section of the New Testament is the basis for mature, loving and responsible behavior. For someone not steeped in psychology, Jesus's comments were remarkably prescient. What is truly ironic is that this administration prides itself on being God-fearing religious Christians. Well, hypocrisy begins at home.

Another example of this teaching is the sense of outrage one might feel when seeing a parent verbally abuse a child. It took me a long time to realize that I, myself, have occasionally done this to my own children, and that it is virtually impossible to impose your will on someone else. Parents, and countries do good and bad things. For the most part we have to keep hands off. This applies to every country on the planet.

One of the realities of our world is that each person, and each country, has free will. That does not, of course, mean that all decisions will be mature, loving or responsible. We need to see that bad behavior does not give us permission to intercede. When examining our war policies since WW2 we need to recognize the limits of our own power, and allow the world to make its way without the U.S. dictating the rules. Even as parents,we soon realize just how little control we have over our own children.

Ultimately the best one can do is to take personal responsibility for our own behavior, and correct our mistakes as we go along. Every major religion has some way of expiating our sins. These processes exist because we all make mistakes and we all need to atone for our mistakes as best we can.

United States foreign policy fails to see the plank in our own eye before we start talking - or taking action- about the speck in the other guy's eye. Failure to have this basic understanding of human nature has gotten us into so much trouble that we're going to have to work overtime to atone for all of our sins.