A doozy from the N.Y.Times

Just when you thought it couldn't get any stranger, The New York Times is calling for abolishment of the Electoral College.

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.

I guess they don't understand the original reasoning behind the College. It was set up this way to ensure that a centralized or a group of population power-bases (like New York, California, Illinois and Florida) would not be the ones electing the president while the rest of the country has no say in the matter. They set up the College to give proportional weight to each state when it comes to electing the president. I suppose the Times just doesn't get the constitution and the concept of states' rights and federalism.

Or perhaps they do...