A [fairly] recent letter to the editor of the AJC revealed something that will scare anyone who still supports how education in America is working and what is being taught:
But it is the writer's deep pit of ignorance regarding civics that is most alarming. States, as in each of these "United States" actually determine how electoral votes are allocated. Turns out the president doesn't write and pass legislation and while Congress actually does, this writer's ambition requires a constitutional amendment or an agreement of, by and between the States. The writer not only ignores the fact that the race wasn't run on popular vote--there were "uncontested" states--but that Clinton did not "win" the popular vote and a proportional allocation would have thrown the choice to the House. For folks like this whiner that nasty ole Constitution keeps getting in the way.
"Electoral votes should be proportioned. If a candidate gets 40 percent of the vote then she/he should get 40 percent of the electoral votes. Since Republicans now control all branches of the government, they should change the law so that the election truly reflects the will of all the people, otherwise one could think that for them it's only the will of the people if their candidate wins."This hits all the whiny loser points. Their candidate lost the race, as the race has always been run, and in fact Clinton was considered a master of those rules. Yet lost. Pointing to the popular vote in a race run for electoral votes is infantile. These whiners had no problem on Tuesday afternoon when Clinton was still projected to win--the electoral college. Now they cannot accept that Clinton lost fair and square and on her own merits.
But it is the writer's deep pit of ignorance regarding civics that is most alarming. States, as in each of these "United States" actually determine how electoral votes are allocated. Turns out the president doesn't write and pass legislation and while Congress actually does, this writer's ambition requires a constitutional amendment or an agreement of, by and between the States. The writer not only ignores the fact that the race wasn't run on popular vote--there were "uncontested" states--but that Clinton did not "win" the popular vote and a proportional allocation would have thrown the choice to the House. For folks like this whiner that nasty ole Constitution keeps getting in the way.