Americans are so sick of politics right now that merely mentioning a phrase like "let's get rid of the
Please! Don't harm yourselves! Besides, eye stabbing is just too darn chock-full of drama.
So what if I threw in a version of an American future without the
Think of an America with happy, prosperous people living on the East and West coasts, a people secure with great educations, manners, entertainments, wealth. And amenities that come with such a cool future, like driverless cars, humanoid robots and unlimited data directly transmitted to chips embedded in your skulls.
And what of the "heartland," which politicians privately call "flyover country" but which you and I still call the Midwest?
Gaunt faces, old clothes, bleak horizons. A giant electrified fence stretching across what were once called "states" but are now called "districts." And each district ruled by a governor appointed by the president.
And great mud holes where the
Is that possible? Probably not.
I apologize for even typing such a stupid idea and for foolishly mixing presidential politics and sci-fi. One is reality, the other is pure fantasy. My bad.
In reality, for example, President
My excuse is that it's been a long political season and nerves are frayed, and now Americans are once again talking about getting rid of the
They're not screaming about it. People are talking about it rationally, thoughtfully, civilly.
It happens in close presidential elections, especially when the victor, in this case Trump, wins the electoral votes but loses the popular vote, in this case to
She received more votes. He won more states, thus winning the electoral votes from those states, as is the law.
Is this really fair? Or is it some dusty trick from some faded document, allowing the elites to enforce their will upon us again and again?
With Clinton losing the electoral vote and winning the popular vote, as did her fellow Democrat
"It is only fair," said a friend. "Every vote counts. And the candidate with the most votes wins. What's wrong with that? It's called democracy."
That's what it's called all right: Democracy, which means either the "rule of the people" or "rule of the mob," depending on whether you just liked the songs in "Hamilton" or actually read his stuff.
Democracy started in ancient
Naturally, Trump didn't tweet his anti-
Yet thoughtful people who voted for Hillary are making the case and doing it well.
"I think it is antiquated," wrote a reader from
Nice, but when people ask me "what do you think?" I'm inclined to tell them, and often they're displeased.
There is merit to the idea of a popular vote for president. It would certainly be efficient and speedy, especially with our advanced technology. The problem is that in some things I opt for inefficient and slow. Yeah, I'm weird like that.
I'm not even a big fan of early voting. I figure that if voting is actually important to you, then you'll get up on
Still, if we got rid of the
We wouldn't need a
The populated coasts would become supreme. And if
We'd have real democracy for a change. And the majority would rule. And that ancient experiment called a republic, designed to be inefficient and slow, to protect the minority view?
Who'd want that anyway?