candycorn
Diamond Member
You may be right. I do not really care that much which party/group gets the advantage. Its a matter of right and wrong. 100 years ago, we were looking at ticker tapes. Radio had barely been invented. Phonographs were hand crank models. Today, information and data travel so fast that when I sneeze in Phoenix, I get a text from a friend in Europe saying "God Bless You". We can--and should--give the people a voice in electing the president. If it benefits Dems, Republicans, Greens, morons, or the Federation of Eagles (if they're still around), I don't care. The states get to weigh in but so do the people. If "loser" is getting 10M more votes of the people than the "winner", something is screwy. In the past, we couldn't practically address it. Now we can.MAGA would be fine with that. Why?
Because individual members of the House do not get a vote, what happens is there is one voter per state delegation. They see that as an advantage to their side.
WW
The change in the stipulation is the keystone of a bigger plan. We need to have 4 or 5 "super Tuesdays" for the primaries instead of one election here and one election there then 10 elections, then 3 then 4 then 7. Have 10 states at a time in one region go to the polls on the first 2nd Tuesday of February, then the 2nd Tuesday of March, have 10 other states on the other side of the nation go to the polls. Candidates who have urban appeal are not at a disadvantage as they are in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina; effectively killing them off before industrialized states get to vote.
Then when the general election comes around, have a month of early voting. We count the votes on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You get more participation, you get more buy in, you get fewer stunts (aka October surprises).