Sure, we can abolish the Electoral College. Just show me a better idea first..... (written in late 2016)

I get it.

More times than not, the Democrats have historically pulled the shortest straw in terms of losing the Electoral College despite winning a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.

In fact, over the past century and a half, the Republicans are on a 4 election winning streak with such a scenario. Most of us are well aware that Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote. The same scenario happened in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison defeating Grover Cleveland and yet again with Rutherford Hayes defeating Samuel Tilden in 1876 after a bitter dispute over 20 electoral votes and a controversial final agreement.  

But... the GOP needs to stop spiking the football and dancing like jackasses in the end zone for the moment because if the shoe were on the other foot right now, they'd be throwing their own fit and Fox News would have a new story to lead with for the next 12 months while pretending everyone actually cares. 

The truth is the Democrats feel a little ripped off at the moment.  God knows we're all only human and when we get ripped off we tend to get a little riled up and start hacking at the source of frustration with a machete when we probably should have been using a scalpel.

Now out of respect for people that I care about, I've been taking a back seat on this post election angst for the past month and a half because I believe that over time, this too shall pass. Hell, I'm still not over the Indians blowing that 3-1 lead in the World Series.  But this current hot-button notion of "The electoral college is antiquated and needs to be abolished now!" is one I can't and won't bite my tongue on.  You don't get to retroactively change the rules of a completed game because you don't like how it turned out.

First and most importantly, we already DO use the popular vote. We are a nation of 50 sovereign states. "Sovereign" essentially means that each state has its own self-governed entity. It has its own unique voting laws that include rules on voting registration and early voting. In these 50 states plus D.C., we count electoral votes and when a candidate wins a state, he/she gets their electoral votes. 

Look, whether it was part of the original intent or not, one of the greatest benefits of the Electoral College is that is forces the candidates to visit the ENTIRE country during his/her campaign.  The United States is diverse land mass with a third of a billion inhabitants and captivates literally a dozen or more identifiable cultures. It also respects the individuality of each state and respects their right to protect their own identity. Candidates aren't trying to win the most votes. They are trying to win the most STATES. And states have weighted values based on population. Therefore California, New York, Florida and Texas will continue to have a larger say for years to come.

If winning the popular vote were all it took to win the election, the candidate could spend all of his or her time and money in only a select few heavily populated states, which in turn disregards the voices and opinions of a large number of other voters scattered across the remaining majority of the U.S land mass. In fact if you do the math, this doesn't let EITHER concept off the hook entirely because electoral or popular vote alike, if you ONLY win the 11 most populated states (see table 1 below), you'll hit the magic number of 270 electoral votes to successfully win the election while snubbing 39 of 50 states. You want to talk about “disenfranchisement”? You don’t get much more disenfranchised than that. One could argue the same in terms of winning those states simply in terms of popular vote. This begs the questions "Should we devise a better solution still?"

Table 1
Data source: www.270towin.com

And in response to those that want to switch to the "popular vote only" method, that is an extreme measure which would require us to rip up the Constitution as it exists right now, eliminate the borders between all 50 states and convert us us one big fat country with NO states.  A popular vote election process is a part of a "Direct Democracy", which can work for a single country where there are no independent states and the people directly select their leaders. But a "Direct Democracy" does not work in a union of sovereign states like ours. In order to allow Californians to remain Californians while Texans can be Texans, we structured ourselves in a version of Democracy called a "Representative Republic" or a "Psephocracy", which is based on a Constitution and elected groups of people to represent the communities across the entire country.  Here, since the president is selected to represent the union of states, he or she is selected by the states themselves. The states subsequently have their own independent voting laws as they deem fit to best represent their residents. So if you want to take up issue with this system, don't talk to the federal government because they have no authority on the matter. Talk to your state legislature.  And no, you can't press the state electors to jump ship and select the a candidate other than the one that one their state. Most state constitutions prohibit this and the few that don't won't provide enough electoral votes to push Mrs. Clinton over the top. And even if it were, it would have to get through the Republican congress. Yeah that'll happen.

So ultimately, the president is campaigning to win states, not votes. And states have a point value based on their population.  This concept is so mathematically sound that we even accept it in sports. In the NBA, the NHL and in Major League Baseball, you win a championship by winning games in a best-of-seven series, not by scoring the most points. And yes, this does mathematically allow for the possibility that the team with fewer total points actually loses the championship. In fact, the 1960 World Series saw the New York Yankees score twice the total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates scored.  And despite the Yankees having three blow-out victories, Pittsburgh won 4 squeakers and took the 4 out of 7 games needed to earn the title.

Sticking with the baseball analogy for a moment longer, let me throw this final curve ball before my arm gives out. For the sake of simplicity, let's say our country is only made of only three states. In a Direct Democracy election with two candidates "Smith" and "Jones", and where each state has exactly 1 million registered voters (of which miraculously 100% of them turn out to vote), you can see Smith taking two out of 3 states but Jones wins the election by a mere 60,000 votes (see table 2 below). In this scenario, one state gets to impose its will on the other two. Does that make sense to you?

Democrats fare just fine in elections when they understand the rules of engagement. President Obama spend significant time and money in rural America connecting with and gathering supporters there.  Hillary Clinton stood back and called them "deplorable" while assuming she was entitled to a victory. She could not have been a more overly confident candidate. 

Therefore I am open to any suggestions that can improve our current system while still respecting the independence of our 50 states.  Everyone’s voice should be heard. Not just the ones that agree with you (or me).

Stop blaming guns for all of your problems in life.

Only a week into the tragic terror attack in Orlando, I can’t say I am shocked to see the rhetoric going back and forth about gun control already. It happens like clock work every time. Granted, there is typically a silent grace period of one to two days when the tragedy is as horrific as this one. But nonetheless, people have failed to disappoint once again. 

So we all are aware that a deranged and extreme religious zealot murdered 49 innocent souls. Yet so many of you focus on the guns; the inanimate object that had a human hand stuck in it pulling the trigger repeatedly.  Nobody seems to be pissed off at the man holding it nor his extremist views nor how he and others are attempting to warp and bastardize an entire religion of 1.8 billion that for the most part, does NOT condone his behavior.

Look, we get it already. You hate guns. You hate them for your own unique reasons and I respect your opinion regardless as to why you have it. Your concerns are not without some validity. But stop cherry-picking certain world events as a means to justify your beliefs and to impose them on others as a Utopian solution to a much greater problem. 

I strongly believe that most human beings do not have what it takes bring themselves to kill another human being. The few that do, might use an assault rifle if available. But if not, they can easily find or build an array of other potential weapons to do the job.   I suppose you have no explanation for Timothy McVeigh’s fertilizer bomb that killed 168? What about the Chechnyan brothers’ backpack bombs in Boston? Suitcase bombs in Belgium? Or perhaps the crazed extremist in England that killed a harmless and innocent military drummer with a butcher knife? Some even lock people in a cage and light them on fire. And I suppose I don't need to point out that nearly 3000 people were killed by 4 jetliners that were hijacked with cheap box cutters. The methods are almost infinite. Guns are used on occasion because they are convenient. But if we remove the guns, they will find other means as they often already do. The root cause of the problem is unchecked evil - not their weapons of choice. 

I’ve been noticing false trends on both sides of the aisle. People on the LEFT seem to think that the RIGHT wants 100% freedom for anyone to buy ANY kind of gun ANY time they want. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Even the NRA supports a thorough background check and prohibiting the sale of guns to those deemed as threats. I’ve yet to meet someone that says “Let’s keep selling guns to crazy people”. The problem here is not to expand the background checks but to improve the means of collecting data and the data architecture itself. The private sector is good at this. For crying out loud, Washington, start recruiting some of these experts and pay them what they are worth to get the job done. And the RIGHT seems to think that the LEFT wants a 100% ban on ALL guns and that the politicians are going door to door to collect your guns. That is not true either. I know registered Democrats with guns. I also know registered Republicans with guns that fully agree with an intense background screening process. As far as assault rifles go,  I agree they are a bit silly. But the weapon is harmless until put into a human hand. So are knives, bricks and cars for that matter. Everything requires responsibility and safety and not allowing certain people to have access to it. Some people aren’t allowed to drive simply because they could have a seizure behind the wheel. I don’t hear anyone rejecting that safety measure. 

I can easily be a Monday morning quarterback here but let’s face it, despite the FBI’s numerous victories in intercepting potential threats, (and they have),  they blew this one big time. But nobody bats a thousand. Let’s learn from it, improve and move forward.

There are literally millions upon millions of guns in circulation. It is just as impossible to make them all disappear as it is to deport 10 million illegal aliens. Let’s focus on realistic solutions for a moment. I’ve made this point before but I am willing to bet real money that if we ban assault rifles entirely or ALL guns for that matter, the first time we see a deranged person rampage into a room and kill 20+ people with an assault rifle he was able to obtain on the black market, we’ll have to say to ourselves, “well, that didn’t work.” Then when we see a deranged person rampage into a room and kill 20+ people with a hand gun or run them down with his car or detonate a homemade fertilizer bomb, we’ll have to again say, “well, that didn’t work either.” Then where do we all go from there? Who will you have left to blame?

I say let’s test the theory. Let’s pass a temporary ban on assault rifles for three years and see what happens. Let’s find out if it works. I’ll give you a hint: Britain has extremely strict gun control laws. Yet Jo Cox from Parliament was just gunned down there last week. How did that happen? Again, It happened because of evil people that want to kill. Not because of a gun.

Let’s please remember one thing; this division between us is exactly what they want to see happen. They attack us and we respond by attacking each other while allocating desperately needed resources away from the true source of the problem and applying it toward those of us that are supposed to be working to fight it. If we don’t stick together we’ll fail together.

Remember that Rome fell from within.