Considering you sit safely behind a keyboard in someone place unknown..you can do that all you want.
Won't work. But you are welcome to try.
And the fact is..Bush LOST the popular election..
and won by some very dodgy legal shennigans.
This wasn't a first for Republicans, either.
You can bray on about how you guys got all this "popular" support..but when push comes to shove..you hang on to a system which is both antiquated, baffling and insures that every once in a while..someone will win without the popular vote.
All in the name of "protecting the minority".
Sallow, are you off your rocker?
You have disregarded all the facts in favor of the electoral college just to try and justify your stupidity. Epic Fail
What "facts"?
The electoral college is ridiculous.
If your state doesn't have the population..it's protected by the Senate.
There's absolutely no reason that 2 ******* branches of government need to protect the minority.
None.
Dear Mr. Sallow,
I know the electoral college is inconvenient at times, but it goes to the heart of this Democratic Republic we live in and how we got this way.
We're 50 countries in one in America. That's right, 50. The big states with small populations didn't come together by accident with us. They came, having been guaranteed a semblance of status into the union with not a lot of, but enough power to make themselves heard over the voices of large, populous areas through a number of means. First, they were guaranteed local control by building in a weakness into the greater fed that would let their voices ring out clear and loud without fear of being outshouted by the big boys by giving ultimate power and even voting privileges with the great big states who could drown out all the little states if things weren't equal at the final voting phase of national bills passage. For every representative and senator it has, a state gets one vote. The least state, Wyoming, has less than half a million people, but its electoral representation is 3 - 1 congressman at large, and 2 senators. The largest population state is California with a whopping 55 - 53 congressmen and 2 senators. New York has 31, Texas 34. It's a combination of small states with final bill passage plus population represented in Congress votes.
It's most likely to be inconvenient to members of large states, yet still, in order to fulfill equal representation, we have to yield to the states as equal partners at decision-making time.
If you think having to listen to your little sister yapping all the time, think of Wyoming. Does it have a lot of votes? The people there don't think they have any say at all. Who is going to resent their 3 votes when at time to elect a POTUS, you have 31 votes--10 times their yap plus!
So it depends on what kind of inconvenience you are talking about, not getting to have much of a say over who is POTUS or having a satisfying enough amount of power at Senate passage bill time to say, ok, buddy, we're all in this together, and have it mean something to small as well as large states.
The electoral college should keep states reasonably happy. If not, the alternative is to let states go and not be "all in this together."
What fun is that?
I lived in Wyoming 35 years. I know what it feels like to not have much of a say in who becomes the President. It feels like you do not have much of a say, because you don't, actually.
We did have a couple of joys, though. As time marched on, Wyoming became #2 in oil production and is likely still there. It's a giver state, and that's very satisfying to people to know that.
And they get 25% more sayso at the electoral college. Are we gonna quit? NO! We just put our cowgals at the border and tell the buffalo, "Go back, little dogies, go back."
