If You’re Not Part of the Solution . . .

Great line from today’s Maureen Dowd:

Team Romney has every reason to be shellshocked. Its candidate, after all, resoundingly won the election of the country he was wooing.

is the president of white male America.

* * * * * * * *

Until now, Republicans and Fox News have excelled at conjuring alternate realities. But this time, they made the mistake of believing their fake world actually existed. As Fox’s Megyn Kelly said to Karl Rove on election night, when he argued against calling Ohio for Obama: “Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?”

Share
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Trevor Wright

    Although I voted for Obama, I wish the winner of the election was determined purely based off the popular vote. The electoral college makes our votes a lot less powerful. After all, Romney won more states than Obama but still lost soundly by way of the electoral college. All the election really showed me was that if you focus on the big states with the most electoral votes and win them, you are going to win the election. Obama pretty much locked it up when he won California and Texas. I think it would be better if the electoral votes were shared in proportion to the % of votes you get in each state instead of being an “all-or-nothing” deal. It would be interesting to see who the president elect would turn out to be based on this method. My guess is it would have been Romney.

    • http://www.facebook.com/nicole.kutteh Nicole Kutteh

      At first I agreed completely with this point, believing that the people should have the final say. So I looked farther into why it is this way and found that two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state’s system for proportional allocation of votes. However, i came to the conclusion (which could be wrong) that if every state split votes fractional proportional, in conjunction with the the electoral college votes already being weighted by population, it would completely diminish the point of the electoral college and would be a roundabout way of conducting a popular vote. Raising the competitiveness of each state. Except for states with very few electoral votes that could not accurately represent the popular vote. However, i do wish there was a better system.

      http://www.every-vote-equal.com/pdf/EVE-CH-4.pdf

      (very dense but describes why changing to a proportional system would not be beneficial)

    • http://www.facebook.com/kwithee Kerri Withee

      The electoral college-I love it. I actually find it strange how much I like to defend the electoral college….Now I’m writing this without reading up on the details of the EC since high school, so correct me if I am blatantly incorrect about something.

      The EC is designed to eliminate the possibility of a candidate winning by gaining votes from the biggest states. When you combine the votes from the top ten states, the total of electoral votes come to 256 (CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA, and NC). If you add one or two more states with more than ten electoral votes, then yes they have it. But let’s speak realistically, are CA and TX ever going to vote for the same candidate?! Or NY and GA? A candidate will have to gain the support of large and small states to win the election.

      I’m not sure what I think about dividing electoral votes. I haven’t read enough on the subject…I read the link Nicole posted, but it was very confusing…..