New York Times Op-ed response

Arrrgh.

Premise, premise, premise!

One again in "Stacking the Electoral Deck" the writer's overall point is correct. Just changing California's electoral votes does not solve the problem. But that is where the writer's rightness ends.............yes right, because it is painfully obvious that he/she/it is a lefty. While op-eds do have a side.......shouldn't they at least have research behind them, or if no research is actually done they should at least have a bland enough article that it is hard to argue against.

However, this is article is merely a conspiracy theory penned by a left-wing nut. For clarification not all left wingers are nuts.........and yes there are right-wing nuts. Conspiracy theorists, however, always get to go by the term "nut" and since the writer is writing for the left why not qualify them as so.....Moving on.....The writer misses the point that California's voting block is huge (which they do get) and represents a diverse group of people.......which the writer does not understand. Breaking CA's voting electoral votes up is a step in the right direction to letting the people's vote actually matter. Every group left, right , center, and nutty should be lobbying for this change.

They should also be lobbying other states to do the same thing.

So, if California would be the first state (oh no, heaven forbid a large state takes a leadership role), they would be setting an interesting example for the rest of the country.

In the end I am not an electoral college scholar, and therefore I am not throwing my support behind the CA plan, but if the writer of the op-eds downsides are true.......and they are the only downsides.......then I would probably support the idea.

Premise of the writer-The California is a Republican Conspiracy to win the Presidential race. What the writers premise for the article should have been (if they wanted a strong article)- The only way a democrat can win is by quieting the impact of Republican votes in CA.