Sincerely,
M J R

A loser’s deal, since it wouldn’t include computer hack/cracks or immigrant votes.

– grief and disbelief at the election’s outcome;

– fury at the thought that some Democrat electors might defect — and a futile attempt to contain the damage by suggesting/demanding that the Other Side do the same (rosta ruck)…

– wishful thinking for the sweet sake of wishful thinking.

This can be considered in the same category as the attempts to force a vote recount (but only in the areas that might help Hillary, natch). It’s desperation, and unless Trump is truly asleep at the switch, it won’t work.

I don’t think the Democrats’ edge really comes from having California, New York, and Illinois locked up, and it really doesn’t even come from adding NJ, CT, MA, DE, DC, VT, MD, WA, HI, and OR to that list. It came from having MI, PA, and in the last three elections, NV, VA and CO.

I guess what I am saying is that the parties have largely battled each other in the exact same states over and over, with every Republican making stab at PA and MI, but only Trump was able to break through- which is what had to happen, or the Republican Party was/is going to be locked out of the White House.

Despite the intent of the electoral college system, for many years, Democrats have so dominated New York, California, Illinois, and a few other high-population states, that they start every election by putting Republicans in a deep hole.

Democrats are free to build a strategy to achieve 270 electoral votes, without committing any time or resources to their sure-thing states. Usually they can pour everything into winning the rust belt and a few other states, and the election is over.

On the other hand, Republican sure-things are limited to a small number of thinly populated states in the Great Plains. To win, they need to spread campaign time and resources all over the country — excepting New York, California, and Illinois. This is obviously a more difficult strategy.

I wrote this off the top of my head, without consulting any data or maps. Still, I think the general idea is right. In saying so, I’m not denying that the purpose of the electoral college is still in force, but I would argue that the modern electoral map has given Democrats a running start, and they have little reason to complain about the electoral college.

– we agree to do away with the Electoral College and go to a national popular vote for President of USA

* when and only when *

– you-all agree to cooperate in *fully* (and regularly) cleansing the voter rolls of *all* cemetery residents and illegal voters.

Deal?

Sincerely,
M J R

Which is the point of these articles, to build momentum in a movement to make the election of the President a direct vote, i.e. a popularity contest.