OK, I now understand your logic with the red votes in the IRA. It could work. There is also a lot of evolution that could happen as this IRA is being built, including many people rethinking things.
If I were a sports reporter for a local newspaper and a high school basketball game had a final score of 65 to 62, I would write that story up as a close game. If I were a player in that game for the 62 side, I would replay my mistakes and realize I created the loss. Had I not missed that easy layup or been so lazy on defense on a few plays or got that silly foul, my team would have been the winner. But it still would have been a close game. Both teams were contenders for the victory.
Yes, the EC gave Mr. Trump the edge in that game. Just like referees might have had a slight bias for either the 65 or 62 side of the 65-62 basketball game. But Mr. Trump was a contender for the presidential race in 2016. The EC will never vault someone into the office with a 60-40 split in popular vote. If the talents and readiness of the two basketball teams were yield a score like 60 to 40, a slightly biased referee could not have given the game to the 40.
I have one question that no one on Medium wants to answer: Why was someone like Mr. Trump ever put into the position of being a contender in the first place? Ideally, he should have been tossed out in the R primary, but the system failed.
Notice I'm not blaming the Trump supporters here.
In my TDG, someone like Mr. Trump would not get very far. Mr. Trump would not want to attend hearings about how wide to make a crosswalk on Fifth Avenue. And without that experience to show his credibility for governance, he would not rise. But he could rise very high and quickly in USA's electoral system.
While I predicted a Trump presidency was possible long before the pundits, I was wrong about his ability to stay in the White House for his term. I really thought the American system would turf him out. So WRONG I was.
Despite all the "catastrophic management", he had a good chance to win again until . . . . .
If it were not for a certain photo with a Bible in front of a church, the election in November would have been another close race. Now a 60D-to-40R split seems to be the likely result. Not even the EC can give Mr. Trump the victory.*
But just imagine if Floyd George had been killed after November 3 or Mr. Trump decided not to take that walk?
Why should history be decided on the timing of these two events?
Likewise, the D primaries had at least two candidates with a great vision. Had November not been seen as a 50/50 race, would the D's have nominated one of those visionaries instead of a status quo guy?
Why should history be decided on the timing of these two events?
Is this a system that is working well?
-----
* I say this with some reservation. Politics is a strange business. But right now, the presidential election is for the D's to screw up. There's nothing the R's, or the media, or the civil service can do about that result. In basketball terms, the R's are a weak team and the refs are fair enough.
That D screwup is still possible.
