at home, supposed to be celebrating mom’s birthday so here’s just a little interesting thing I found via NYTimes (my fave!)

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html

Click on “Switch all tossups to McCain” or whatever the devil it says, and see that Obama still wins… I know that polling is an inexact science and so is calling electoral votes but still, very interesting. I guess we’ll see how it ends up!

PS-Do you think the electoral college is a good thing, or no? See, many people think it’s a bad thing, putting the kibosh on a “free” election. The problem is that it wouldn’t be free, persay–most people who barely have the funds now to run would NEVER be able to run, much less even contemplate it, because of the vast majority of campaign funds that would be necessary in so very many states.

At the same time, the winner take all system is looking more and more dated as time goes by, and creates little incentive for people to vote when they are in a state in which their vote will most likely not count. This is true for me–I’d be a registered voter right now if I didn’t live in a red state, and therefore feel apathetic about my vote ever counting in the first place (Not that I vote blue; I vote by character–I’m an Obama supporter who was president of Young Republicans back in high school!).

So which side do you agree with? Is there a better solution? Would it become possible in this increasingly digital era to be able to run a cheaper (and still effective) campaign as less expensive internet resources are used, therefore nullifying the argument for more expensive campaigns? Or do you think that even now, our campaign system unfairly benefits the wealthy (See Tom Tancredo as an example)? Tell me what you think! I don’t often ask for opinions, but this is something I truly want to know about!

Advertisements