An important world power is conducting fundamentally flawed elections for its highest office.Quigley cites FairVote research in his column to show the inherent unfairness of the Electoral College, and touts the National Popular Vote plan as a "wise" means of changing the system for the better. (See also a recent op-ed by National Popular Vote's John Koza on this topic in the San Diego Union-Tribune last week.)
This country's president is chosen not by virtue of the popular vote, but by political elites who meet weeks after the polls close. Just nine years ago, this system resulted in a reversal of the popular vote result, as it had three times previously.
The country in question is not Iran, Russia or some banana republic. It is the U.S., still dragging around the molting albatross of American democracy, the Electoral College.
He importantly notes that though his state of Indiana was unusually touched with a degree of presidential relevance in 2008--only due to President Obama's overall strong performance nation-wide--Indiana is normally a spectator state (as are most states), bereft of attention during presidential contests. "Every vote cast for president should be equally important and equally coveted," he writes, "whether it originates in California, Connecticut or Crawfordsville." We think so, too.