Thanks jseal, for the links and all the info.

As to a reform to the 12th amendment...Since it's inception, there have been quite a few tweaks/changes to it. As it stands today, and what some people may not realize is, when we cast our vote for a presidential candidate, we are in actuality voting for an electorate official to make up the slate for our particular state. In this system, we cast a blind faith vote for the person who is running for this office (Electoral College Slate), and that he/she is truly what they claim they are...be it a Democrat or a Republican. And [we] don't even know who these people are or anything about their past political views unless [we] are diligent enough to seek out who is in the running and look into their political history. They aren't the ones campaigning. It's the candidates that they claim to represent that are in our faces day in and day out.

I've never been a supporter of blind faith in any action in my life. I'm more of a scientific mindset. Maybe I should move to Missouri...the "Show Me" state! LOL!

Anyway...I see room for change...where [we] can know the names and politics of our electorate slate for each state...and vote for them first, in a seperate election. Or, better yet, get rid of the electoral vote all together. It's antiquated anyway. It was made up even before there were political parties and when there were fewer states and fewer people and no way for them to get to know a candidate outside of their own state (no mass media). We all know how bombarded we are by media coverage now. How about a bit of "blind faith" from the governing bodies that ask it of us, and trust that [we] are smart enough and informed enough to make a vote based on processed information from all candidates...not just our local yokel!!! This isn't a football game ya know! I can look outside some of my loyalties and weigh the issues and figure the balances on my own...damnitalltohell! I know...I know...Don't ask something of someone else that you aren't willing to do yourself (blind faith reference). But, there's got to be a better way...right? How bout an EQUAL amount of electorate votes for each state? It's a tweak...not an abolishment (word?...is now!)...and I can't understand why one state can walk taller and carry a bigger stick. We're all Americans!

As to the morality and religious issue...pollster's questions were like this..."In order of priority, the most crucial being number one, why did you vote for *your candidate* (insert Republican or Democratic candidate here)"...and then gave a list of issues with unspoken subtext...such as: Terrorism...Morality...Homeland Security...Healthcare...Trust...National Debt...etc. etc...and the religious votes fell under morality...whereas the cost of prescriptions would have fallen under healthcare. When further questioned, in informal interviews in the media, those who voted morality (nearly 80% of the voting population) sited reasons of church and state, such as I listed above (in my last response to this thread). The one I listed above is just one of the few that I remembered verbatim. Since there was no Religion category persay, the voters concluded/included it with morality. I wasn't the one who put it all in a nutshell...it was the other voters!

*falls off the soapbox* Eeeeeeeek!

__________________
Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open.

~Thomas Dewar~