I think that one thing which lost in all the crying about fraud and cheating (and I will concede that fraud and cheating occurs in every election and on both sides), is the inequity within the electoral system. When the system is rigged so heavily in favor of the urban vote, there are always a whole bunch of ruralites who are under represented. It has always seemed odd to me that, when a state has 6 million voters and one candidate wins by a couple of hundreds of votes, all urban based, it is unreasonable that ALL of that states electoral votes should go to the (barely) winner. So, in Pennsylvania, for instance, if Biden squeaks out a win by an exceptionally narrow margin, by virtue of overwhelming support in the cities, that would indicate that nearly all of the rural people voted against him. It would seem to me that it would be reasonable for the winner to get 15 of the electoral votes but the loser, with vast support, remember, should be entitled to 5 or so. This scenario has repeated in a lot of states; a razor thin margin with the divide showing the urban/rural split. By the way, when is the last time we have had a candidate from a rural background (and I don't mean a rich guy with a country estate)? If the rural voters get any representation in the electoral college, the results are likely to be quite different. There are at least a half dozen states where this could apply. If, as now seems likely, the Democrats win the Presidency, I can't see how they can possibly hold it for more than a single term. What's more, I think it is likely Joe Biden won't finish the term. If the Republicans can put forward a candidate who truly represents conservative voters but can promote some social reforms needed in these times, they will easily sweep the Dems out of the Whitehouse. Maybe we can even have a president who doesn't believe in borrowing money and running the nation further into debt. GD
