I've been a fan of the New York Sun for about a year now. It is a smallish, mostly conservative newspaper that I pick up while on layovers in NYC. I enjoy their reporting and editorial slant. It should not have to be said that I've given up completely on the New York Times--I won't even grab one off a seat somewhere.
The other day, I picked up a Sun which had an article on their front page on an effort among New York state legislators to "curb the Electoral College". Many in blue states cannot help but remember that the 2000 presidential election had Bush winning the electoral vote, but Gore winning the popular vote, and they want to "correct" that. They are entirely disingenuous, however, when they openly admit that this is an attempt "...to establish a popular vote system without a constitutional amendment, which requires the support of two-thirds of Congress and 38 states...." In other words, find a way around the clear meaning of the Constitution because, you know, it's unlikely that they would actually succeed in amending it.
The supporters of this movement miss the obvious: The interests of those in urban coastal cities are often very different than the interests of other voters. They are entirely locked into their arrogance that Big States=Smart States that they are proposing a change which might result in case where the voters of "as few as 11 of the most populous states" might determine the Presidency.
Who cares the wishes of all those hicks in the South, the hayseeds in those flyover states, and all those rubes in those big square states that nobody can name? We've been to Haaavad; We've marched in Berkeley. We know better than them who ought to be President.