I just recently read an article by Matt Mayer critiquing Larry Sabato's

"A Missing Constitutional Link". Before I comment on Mr. Mayer's brilliant recommendation that if we should do anything we should repeal the 17th Amendment, let me address some of Mr. Sabato's other problems with the election process and the electoral college. I would like to say that I generally respect Mr. Sabato's comments and when I see him on T.V. I stop and listen, but in this case I'm a bit confused about his positions. (1) He does point out the sky high cost of elections. Honest assessment. However, I thought McCain-Fiengold was to be the salvation of campaign financing? Obviously it wasn't. Interests groups and activists found new avenues to funnel the mother's milk of politics where they wanted it to go. George Bush's failure to veto this legislation and the Supreme Court's holding on this issue has set a tone that I consider a major "hit" on the First Amendment. How to solve campaign finance is simple, let people or institutions give as much as they want to whomever they want, just one requirement "full disclosure" of who's giving and how much. Does that solution hurt the First Amendment? Of course it doesn't, the First Amendment was to protect political speech. What's the freest expression of Political Speech; giving money to those who advance our positions as citizens. But that wasn't the real problem with McCain-Fiengold, restricting radio and T.V. advertising was the more heinous part of it. Privately owned business are being told what they can or can't do. I don't want to hear the argument about "public airways". That's a ruse and anyone who thinks for themselves knows it. (2) Mr. Sabato seems to think that the polarization in the country is very troublesome and we should be more accommodating and be open to more compromise. That probably makes sense, but who is stopping it from happening? George Bush tried to bring a "new tone" in 2001, where did that get him? Compromise is generally what we have to do to get along, but without going into detail, there are things one should never compromise. There has to be, at some level, a position for even which Mr. Sabato wouldn't compromise, at least I hope so. (3) "Political partes are and have always been state-based..." Question: Why shouldn't they be? You either believe in the Federal System or you don't. How would the federal government legislate it otherwise? Let's assume for a moment that some "federal intelligent design" process was done and legislation comes forth and says we're going to have four regional primaries such as Mr. Sabato has suggested. Question: What if the States of Montana, South Carolina, Texas and Indiana chose not to participate and went there own way? What will be the penalty to those states? I'm not about to give an answer as to the penalties, let your mind just consider that there would be some. Do States retain any sovereignty or not? If not, then the Federal System ceases to exist and Mr. Sabato is right, we've got to scrap the whole document are start over, don't we? "Federal Intelligent Design" to me means, we know better than you do, we're smarter than you. How else do you interpret condescension? (4) How do you fix the Electoral College Mr. Sabato? Simple, follow the process in the constitution, the amending process. Or should that to be by-passed with "federal intelligent design"?

Mr. Mayer has given us a big part of the solution Mr. Sabato seeks, and that is repeal the 17th

Amendment. Make Senators accountable in their States and don't let them play to the national audience. After all, all politics are local aren't they? I love asking questions. I think we need to ask more questions? I once asked a Congressperson the following question, in person, and live; "How much do you want?" She asked, what do you mean? I said, what percentage of my income will satisfy your appetites in Washington, and was there a percentage at which you wouldn't ask for anything more? I'm still waiting for answer to that question and that was 15 years ago and I still know her and have continued to ask the question.

The bottom line it seems to me in responding to Mr. Sabato is do you believe in the Federal System or don't you and how do you revise the Constitution as it pertains to the Electoral College without either using the amending process or calling a constitutional convention? The idea of "Federal Intelligent Design" is a response that I wouldn't have expected from Mr. Sabato.