Electoral College Nonsense

Some people, mostly democrats, think the president should be the one who wins majority vote instead of the one winning the electoral college majority. Further, it is claimed to be an unfair election if one wins the contest by securing the majority electoral vote but not the popular vote unless one is a democrat that is. This is all wrong and misguided thinking for many reasons. The beauty of the electoral college is it ensures a politician must appeal to a majority of the country not the majority of the citizens which are concentrated in a few major population centers mostly on the east and west coasts. The electoral college is the only way to ensure the politician gives consideration to all people in all areas of the country and not just a few. Without the electoral college all efforts would be directed to only those major population centers where the greatest numbers of votes are, everyone else gets ignored. The idea that it is unfair when one wins the majority vote but not the electoral vote is ridiculous for a very obvious reason. Both candidates know the rules going into this contest. They both are well aware of the rules of the game and how the game is played and agree to the rules at the outset. If one wins the majority of electors but not the popular vote then he wins, period. The loser was treated equal during the process and had nothing restricting his/her ability to make all efforts to secure the greatest number of electors. If one states the loser should be the winner because he/she won the popular vote he ignores the fact that this contest was a contest of obtaining the larger number of electors not a larger number of popular votes. You can not state the winner should be the loser because rules that did not exist while the game was being played should apply retroactively unless you re-run the contest under your set of rules and give the person, you obviously do not like, the opportunity to play by your rules and then see who wins. The winner of any game is the one who has played within the rules and directed efforts at securing what is necessary to win under the rules of the game. He would obviously play the game much differently if the rules were different and knowing who the winner would be under different rules is impossible until the game is finished. So, you can not state the loser is actually the winner because he/she has done better in regards to something not stated as the goal at the outset of the contest. Both sides had equal opportunity to win the contest and both knew what was required to win. If the majority of voters residing in the major population centers were conservative instead of liberal and we used a popular vote method of declaring the winner liberals would be clamoring for the electoral college. cjpost