I saw this interview with Evan Bayh. Although I dissagree with some of his positions, I like the guy and I admire his impressive political accomplishments. I think he could've won the White House in '04 and he has a very good chance for '08. I wouldn't be so dissapointed if that happened, given some of the alternatives. Depending on who the Republican nominee is, I could even see myself supporting him (although I grant this isn't very likely and there are possibly only three Democrats I could support - but he is one of them). Anyway, the interview is here: http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/434527.html
I noticed two answers that seem to conflict with eachother. I want to preface this by stating my hopes this doesn't turn into a mindless rip. Bayh says:
"We also need to reach out to people in the Midwest and the South and let them know that we are not cultural elitists. We share their values."
That's fine and dandy. I think that is a sound strategy for both parties. But he goes on to give this answer on why he supports doing away with the Electoral College:
"I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."
Don't the two statements conflict? If the Electoral Collage is abolished, doesn't that disenfranchise all voters that live in flyover country? How are midwestern values shared if their votes are suppressed by a much larger coastal population?
I noticed two answers that seem to conflict with eachother. I want to preface this by stating my hopes this doesn't turn into a mindless rip. Bayh says:
"We also need to reach out to people in the Midwest and the South and let them know that we are not cultural elitists. We share their values."
That's fine and dandy. I think that is a sound strategy for both parties. But he goes on to give this answer on why he supports doing away with the Electoral College:
"I think our president should be chosen by the majority of the American people. That is ordinarily the case. But in 2000, as we all recall, we elected this president with fewer votes than the other candidate got. I just don't think in the modern era that is appropriate."
Don't the two statements conflict? If the Electoral Collage is abolished, doesn't that disenfranchise all voters that live in flyover country? How are midwestern values shared if their votes are suppressed by a much larger coastal population?