I discovered instapundit fairly recently. And I do check it regularly.
But I'm bored again.
Would someone PLEASE refer me to some interesting websites. They don't have to be blogs. No casino or porn or mortgage sites please.
I recently became aware of the fact that John Edwards was up for re-election to the senate this yearand taht he gave up the seat to run for VP. That's quite a sacrifice. Lloyd Bentsen ran for VP and Senator simultaneously in 1988, and Senator Phil Gramm kept his name on the ballot in 1996 during the Republican primaries. I wonder why Edwards didn't do the same. Perhaps he felt that those two men's chances were hurt when they were seen hedging their bets.
If Bush wins, Edwards will no longer be senator. It looks like a GOPer will take that seat too.
P.S. Thanks to Greg for changing my mind on the Electoral Vote issue. I googled the articles on the subject, in addition to Will's, and came away with my opinion changed.
This article misses the point entirely about the faults of the Electoral College. There are two undemocratic features of the Electoral College system.
1) It gives smaller states a significantly larger proportion of clout in deciding who gets to be president.
2) With the winner-take-all system, the candidate who wins the plurality of votes in a state takes ALL the states' electoral votes.
The Slate article merges the two faults in order to explain why the College needs to be abolished in favor of a direct election. But it's only the first fault that is constitutional. And changing that would involve all the hassle and improbability of a constitutional amendment.
The second problem does not need a constitutional amendment to be fixed. There are a number of ways in which each state can solve that problem. A few solutions:
a) Adopt the Maine plan: Have each congressional district elect one elector and give the two extra votes to the overall winner. Far more democratic.
b) Use a system of Proportional Representation, apportioning the votes by percentage. With so few votes in some states, a formula would have to be figured out, but it can be done.
Why would states want to do that? I think it's in their self-interest. With the current system, candidates completely ignore states that are already clearly showing a 52% or more poll for one candidate. With a proportional or districting system, the candidates would feel more complelled to spend time in those states too. You would be hearing more this week than "Florida, Ohio Wisconsin".
I know I'm an idiot for letting the behaviour of one adulterous, lazy and vindictive shmuck of a balebos with his machasheifa of a wife get to me, but it's difficult to let it roll off my back.
I have been craving a lengthy and deep conversation so desperately for the last few days that it hurts to the extent that I am in physical pain. I don't know who to tell about it without being pitied...