> > > If she only focuses on New York State, California, and Chicago, like
> > > Clinton did, she will indeed likely lose.
> 
> > If they change to a straight popular vote the left will win every
> > election, and need only carry the Washington-Boston corridor, Chicago,
> > Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles - all of which are bastions of
> > Corruptocrats
> 
> Perfect example of how the Electoral College does work.  Back then, I guess
> it would have been NYC and Philly.  It is set up, in part, so that the
> candidates cannot ignore large swaths of the country.  HRC did that and the
> Electoral College did its job by keeping her out of office.

People don't understand that the president/veep are elected by the
states, not by the people.  I think that the states that now require that
their electors vote for the candidate with the highest *nationwide* vote
total - even if that candidate received precisely zero votes in their
state - are dumber than the proverbial box of rocks - and, of course,
they're defeating the purpose of the EC.  The Founders didn't trust the
voters - at the time rich, property owning, white males - to directly
elect the president
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.FIDOSYSOP.ORG (1:123/140)