Guess who wants to eliminate the Electoral College?

Yep, it’s my old Tennessee buddy*, Al Gore.

But in fairness, he says this is a new position for him. He notes that after he won the popular vote but lost the election in 2000 (and yes, my Democratic friends, he did lose; it was not “handed to Bush” illegitimately by the Court), he still supported keeping the Electoral College.

Now, he makes these points along the way to explaining his change of mind (not all of these points are relevant; I just found them interesting):

  • He recognizes that such a move is “not without peril,” and there are good arguments both ways. He says it’s “a balancing act,” but the balance has changed in favor of popular election.
  • He says “I think it would stimulate public participation in the democratic process like nothing else we could possibly do.”
  • He uses the cliche, “the wisdom of crowds” — which seems ironic, given what just happened. Even if the election had been by popular vote, the number of people who voted for Trump would have been scary.
  • Acknowledges that “the Internet age is filled with all this junk,” which is fun to hear given the popular meme that follows him.
  • He sees popular election as one of “three or four things” — another is getting money out of the process — that could revitalize our democracy.

* No, he’s not really my buddy, but we did know each other when he was a senator and I was an editor at the paper in Jackson, TN. Given the season, here’s a favorite story related to that. Al’s uncle or cousin (I was never clear on the relationship) lived down the street from us in Jackson. He was older, shorter and rounder than Al. One Christmas Eve (having checked with us first), he came to our house in his Santa costume to chat briefly with our kids. They were about 7, 5 and 3 at the time, and it totally blew their minds. He was, needless to say, a more gregarious guy than his famous kinsman. He also used to host an annual game supper/political gathering that I attended once, and it was the only time I ever tasted venison.


75 thoughts on “Guess who wants to eliminate the Electoral College?

  1. clark surratt

    I believe he was slightly embarrassed and humiliated in 2000 that he did not carry his own state. That probably led to his subdued reaction after the election. (Wouldn’t that have won it for him Brad? My memory is a little fuzzy.)

  2. JesseS

    I keep hearing solutions, like getting rid of the EC or joining the Interstate Compact or making DC a state because, you know, that’s fair and totally not beneficial to a particular party (and if you disagree, I’ll call you a racist).

    How about we fix our obviously broken primary processes first? You know, something that has a chance of happening.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Making D.C. a state remains, for me, absurd on its face. If it’s a state, then it’s not D.C. — you know, the neutral ground to which we send our elected representatives to make laws for all of us folks who live in the actual STATES…

    2. bud

      Just create a small government district that’s largely un-populated then cede the rest to Maryland. Currently the Pentagon and other government offices are located in Virginia and other states. There is nothing sacred about the current DC arrangement.

  3. Bryan Caskey

    Did he mention if he wants to get rid of the US Senate, as well? Same problem, right?

    All those small states with their double-plus ungood proles who don’t think right are over-represented by the US Senate.

    1. Bryan Caskey

      Luckily, the founders of this country specifically wrote down how the government was going to work and made it extremely difficult for dopes like Al Gore to change it.

      /channeling Jed Bartlet

      What’s next?

    2. Brad Warthen Post author

      “Crimethink” is the word you’re looking for. You should definitely get the latest edition of the Newspeak dictionary. In this one, we’ve always been at war with Eastasia…

    3. Kathryn Fenner

      Not quite the same problem, as I understand it. The EC favors slave states, not small states per se.
      But yes, maybe we need to rethink the Senate as well.

      1. Bryan Caskey

        No. The Electoral College was created so smaller states (like Connecticut) wouldn’t be bulldozed by larger states (like Virginia). It had entirely to do with state size, not slavery.

  4. bud

    Why don’t we just get rid of states. I really see no purpose in today’s mobile society. Just have the House with computer drawn districts. Elect the president by popular vote. Then all is right with the world.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Did you feel that? The Framers all just shuddered in their graves. What’s that they’re moaning? Sounds like, “Mob ru-u-u-ul-l-le…”

      But even if they didn’t, I’d object. Because subsidiarity

      1. bud

        Nothing “subsidiarity” about the states. Some of them are HUGE! My no state solution would still have county and city government. States really are very artificial constructs that serve no real purpose in the 21st century. Wouldn’t it make sense to have 1 national ID that could serve as a driver’s license once the necessary skills are mastered? It could also be your Social Security Card. With today’s modern chips it could even be used as a bank ATM card or, if one wants to opt for it, use it as a locating device. No need for 50 sets of driver rules, test etc. You would know whether you could turn right on red or even what age you need to be to drive without needing to know each state’s peculiar laws. Perhaps it could be expanded to serve as a passport. If it’s ever lost just report to any DMV office anywhere in the country to obtain a new card. Fraud would be minimized with retina scans and passwords where necessary. Heck you might even be able to load the thing onto your smart phone. Since the cards would be issued automatically at birth the whole voter ID problem would be solved over the course of time.

        The no state approach would also streamline many of the interstate commerce issues such as highway construction. There would be one gas tax. It would reduce problems with nuclear waste management, military base closures and a host of other problems that exist today largely because of this clumsy state approach to everything. Some issues like marijuana legalization could be handled in much the same way as dry counties did for many years. If you don’t want to allow it your county then pass an ordinance to that effect. But there would be no need for this state by state nonsense.

        Of course I can hear the Ayn Rand crowd howling about government invasion of privacy. But that could be dealt with using appropriate enabling legislation to prevent over zealous government intrusion. I could even envision less government intrusion since this simple process could have built in safeguards that don’t exist currently with the maze of cards, IDs and other assorted ways to access a persons identity.

        1. Bryan Caskey

          I gave this some thought. I had my two drinks as recommended by the federal government while doing it. After giving it considerable thought, I don’t think it’s a good idea to get rid of states.

          Our system of government entirely revolves around the idea of many states working together with a federal government in a balance that can be sometimes frustrating, sometimes inefficient, but ultimately provides for a great deal of diversity and freedom for the people.

          We don’t have a “one-size-fits-all” set of laws in all aspects of our lives because the people in different areas of our vast country have different beliefs, cultures, and ideas. Federalism allows us to have these different cultures, beliefs, and ideas flourish together. The people of New York can have very strict gun control, while the people of Wyoming don’t. The people of Texas can have zero income taxes, while the people of Connecticut have high ones. The folks in Louisiana have some really weird real estate laws. (By the by, South Carolina has some weird laws, too.) But that weirdness makes us great.

          It’s the motto of our country – e pluribus unum. Out of many…one. At our core, we are many people in one country all living together. We have different cultures, ideas, and beliefs. And this diversity is to be celebrated and protected – even thought it’s not super-efficient. However, as you’ll probably agree: Government isn’t like running a business.

          Federalism allows for diversity of culture, ideas, and beliefs. Is it easy? Nope. For example, it’s it a pain in the behind for me to have to understand that the concealed carry laws in South Carolina don’t in another state. However, I respect that the people in New York have a different point of view than I do on this issue, and I don’t begrudge them the right to restrict the carrying of firearms, as wrong-headed as I think their belief might be.

          Bud, I think you’re a very passionate person, I know you believe in what you believe in very deeply. That’s why you have such strong reactions to people who don’t share your viewpoint.

          If you’ll permit me to give you a bit of friendly criticism, you go wrong when you think that you have a monopoly on what is right and what is good. No one does. That’s why I often in a half-joking way, occasionally state that “I’m just a moron” or “Your mileage may vary” at the end of some of my comments. Half of that is me just joking around. But the other half of it is me realizing that I don’t have the ordained wisdom of perfection in what is right and good.

          What flows from your thinking thinking you have a monopoly on the right way of thinking is your desire to simply eliminate states and all the differences that they carry.

          My advice is to realize that not everyone shares your exact culture, beliefs, and values – and realize that’s okay. So, let’s keep the states, and our state laws, and our differences.

          But hey, I’m just a moron, and your mileage may vary.


          1. Doug Ross

            I’m with you all the way except for this: “But that weirdness makes us great.”
            Not true at all. If most of us agree that some law is “weird” and promotes inefficiency or pushing the will of a few onto others, then that weirdness doesn’t make us great. It makes us just weird.

            There is nothing great about standing in front of an establishment that sells liquor through one door and beer and wine through another door right next to it. That’s not weird, it’s stupid. There is nothing great about a system that allows the Richland County Recreation Commission to be a cesspool of corruption, nepotism, and harassment and not allow for swift action to fix it. That’s not weird, it’s unacceptable. And there is nothing great about a judicial system that has expended so many resources to try and get Dylan Roof to trial when everybody knows he committed a mass murder. That’s not great, that’s inconthievable (sic).

          2. bud

            Huh? When have I ever claimed to have any sort of monopoly on anything? I’m merely suggesting that state borders are artificial. The people within any given state are not homogeneous in there thoughts and beliefs. From that observation it follows that “states” should not decide who becomes president but rather people, regardless of where they live. I will defend that proposition just as adamantly as you defend your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. And just for the record I’ve made a conscious decision not to discuss gun stuff or abortion here.

            1. Brad Warthen Post author

              Actually, state borders are NOT “artificial.” They existed before the federal government did. They evolved out of complex interactions of historical, cultural, political, commercial and geographic factors.

              Again, the states came FIRST. The states formed the union. The idea of a United States without STATES doesn’t make sense on any level…

              1. Brad Warthen Post author

                I mean, you might be able to say “artificial” about some of those western states, all drawn as almost identically shaped quadrilaterals. But I’m talking REAL states here, as in, the original 13. They’re very organic…

            2. bud

              Just for the record 2. I come here to blow off steam. This is my Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll is on facebook. Just sent you (Bryan) a FB friend request.

  5. Doug Ross

    Had Trump won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, I’m sure all these right minded citizens would be just as passionate.

    It isn’t going to change. If you don’t understand what would be required to make this happen, then you are just plain ignorant. You need 3/4 of the states to agree. It isn’t happening. Never.

    1. Brad Warthen Post author

      Actually, Doug, I think you WOULD see Gore and others concerned if it had gone the other way. Why? Because the turmoil from the Trumpistas would be YUGE; they all had a running start on declaring the results illegitimate, with some talking insurrection.

      The fury on the right at Hillary winning without the popular vote would have been like a tidal wave.

      Every serious observer of politics would have been concerned about it, and I think Al fits in that category.

      Whether doing away with the Electoral College would have been the right response to that angst, or that we’re experiencing in the real world, remains to be seen, though…

      1. Brad Warthen Post author

        See what I did just then? I referred to this universe, in which Donald Trump (!) is the president-elect, as the “real world!” Silly me! How droll! I mean, obviously something happened on Nov. 8 that kicked me out of the universe I had always lived in and into another neighborhood of the multiverse.

        Equally obviously, such an extraordinarily singular anomaly can’t be permanent, and I’ll soon be shunted back to the actual “real world,” right? LIke, any moment…

        I wonder whether I’ll have any memory of this universe when that happens…

      2. Doug Ross

        So if the outcome was reversed, Democrats would still be pushing for this change ? Not a chance. They are all hypocrites…and sore losers acting like the young children who cry when they lose a soccer game because the other team was unfair and scored more goals. It’s embarrassing.

        1. bud

          If the reverse had occurred the electoral college would be gone within a year since both sides had gotten burned. No hypocrisy Doug just a pragmatic observation that the electoral college is really nothing but a clumsy approximation of the popular vote, nothing else.

    2. bud

      The point is Trump is a moron and the only real reason to have the electoral college is to prevent morons such as Trump from becoming the POTUS. Since it failed to do that it is really pointless to have it. What people fail to understand is that Trump really never had any realistic chance of winning the popular vote. He’s just too unpopular. Therefore the reverse was not ever really likely to occur.

      1. Doug Ross

        He didn’t try to win the popular vote. He had a strategy based on the rules. He executed that strategy. Hillary didn’t try hard enough and had bad advice from her flunkies who wouldn’t dare tell her she might lose unless she worked harder.

        Billionaire, President of the U.S. with a hot wife…I’d settle for any two of those. Only have one right now.

  6. Scout

    What if we keep the electoral college but states agree to assign electoral votes proportional to the popular vote in their state. So like 2 of SC s 9 would have been blue maybe. Then I’d feel a little more represented.

    Then candidates wouldn’t as easily write off whole states as a done deal maybe.

    How hard would that be? Easier than an amendment, I suspect. A state by state agreement?

    1. Doug Ross

      What if we just had them wrestle instead? There’s as much chance of that happening as well.

      You are asking to change the Constitution. It’s not going to happen. In the words of Hillary Clinton, move on!

      1. bud

        Some fights are worth fighting regardless of the odds. Getting rid of the vile electoral college is one, term limits a resounding no. Without term limits we’d be talking about Obamas third term instead of watching the plutocracy proceed unabated.

        1. Doug Ross

          Okay, keep pushing on the rope. It only took 140 years or so to get women the right to vote. So you can expect to win this fight sometime around 2150.

          1. bud

            America’s history is full of rope pushing. Slavery, women’s suffer age, Jim Crowe, gay marriage, marijuana legalization, child labor reform and many other causes were once scorned by the naysayers as impossible fights. But thanks to determined liberals fighting against the Ayn Rand reactionaries those fights were eventually won. So call me pollyannish but the oppressive yoke of the electoral college can likewise be relegated to the scrap head of terrible ideas.

            1. Doug Ross

              Your use of Ayn Rand as an apparent epithet is hilarious. Who are you taliking about? Should we label all liberals as Noam Chomsky acolytes?

              Who is the most powerful Rand proponent? Provide evidence please. Even i, the most libertarian person here wouldn’t call myself a Randian. I believe in God.

                1. Doug Ross

                  Wrong. Again.

                  “But Ryan has distanced himself from Rand in recent years, for obvious reasons. While she provides a sweeping justification for capitalism and the free market, many of her positions give Republicans pause. Rand supported abortion, opposed religion and was for the most part anti-war. She hated the idea of “duty.” She did not like Ronald Reagan.

                  “I, like millions of young people in America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” he told National Review earlier this year. But, Ryan added: “I reject her philosophy. It’s an atheist philosophy.””

                2. Doug Ross

                  You cannot be a follower of Ayn Rand and be a politician or even work for the government. That’s 180 degrees counter to her philosophy.

                  So keep trying to label people incorrectly…

                  There is a difference between agreeing with some ideas that are presented in a NOVEL and being a devout follower of objectivism.

                  1. Brad Warthen Post author

                    “You cannot be a follower of Ayn Rand and be a politician or even work for the government. That’s 180 degrees counter to her philosophy.”

                    You raise an interesting point. I think what you’re saying used to be true. And I used to assume that people who absolutely HATE government would be uninterested in serving in it. But that began to change, gradually.

                    It started with Reaganism. Reagan was merely mildly hostile to the idea of government, one of those guys who would think “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” is a real knee-slapper. But he caused the idea that the government is the problem, not to solution, to be planted on the right.

                    The form that took back in the 80s was basically, “I don’t want to pay taxes for government.” I watched that take hold. Before that, there were politicians who wanted to keep taxes as low as possible, but it was in the 80s that I first encountered people who seemed hostile to the very idea of taxes.

                    But I got used to that, as that became the norm in the GOP.

                    It wasn’t until I saw Mark Sanford in action as our governor that I realized this anti-government thing had reached a new, more malevolent level.

                    For him, it wasn’t about the TAXES. He didn’t care HOW government got the money. If it fell from the heavens in the form of gold coins, he did NOT want to see it spent on government, period. If we had a good year and had more revenue come in than expected, he wanted to put it into a reserve fund rather than see it spent on government services. When the feds wanted to send SC stimulus money — which would be spent regardless, and would go to other states if it didn’t come here — he resisted SC getting the money with all his might. Why? Because he did not want to see the money spent on government services.

                    That Club for Growth libertarianism was followed by a more populist version in the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus, and lost a lot of its intellectual underpinnings.

                    But basically, we now have LARGE numbers of people serving in government who do not believe in government. Under such people, of course, government is unlikely to do a good job, which means MORE people will hate it, and elect more people who also hate it, and you find yourself on a downward spiral…

                3. bud

                  Ryan only rejected Rand when it became politically inconvenient, mostly her atheism. He’s hardly a profile in courage.

                4. Doug Ross

                  So even though Ryan publicly rejected all but Rand’s ideas on capitalism, that still makes him an Ayn Rand follower? When he votes against abortion and for war, he’s just doing it despite his Randian devotion?

                  He seemed pretty clear on how the novels influenced his thinking when he was younger. I’m sure I could find a nugget of something I agreed with in Hillary Clinton’s platform. That wouldn’t make me a Clinton devotee.

                5. Doug Ross

                  Brad – what I said was completely true now and applies to Sanford as well. He’s not a Rand follower. He’s no different than a person who shows up to church on Easter and Christmas and calls himself a Christian.

                  A basic understanding of Rand’s philosophy is all you need to know that government service of any kind would be in direct opposition to that philosophy. The closest thing to a Randian was Ron Paul.

                  Wanting a smaller, more efficient government isn’t Randian. It’s just the right thing to do.

        2. Claus

          I’m willing to bet that if things were reversed, if Trump won the popular vote and Clinton the Electoral College that there would be no issue with the Electoral College from the Democrats… because that’s why the EC was put in place and it’s worked for the country for over 200 years.

          So now we should not have term limits for the President? Maybe the President can server a term similar to the Supreme Court justices. “Go ahead, stay in office until you drop dead”. Next we’ll just follow the North Korean government model.

      2. scout

        I dont think im asking to change the constitution, Doug. We already dont do the electoral college as intended by having states choose to pledge their electors en masse to a particular candidate. Legal but not what they had in mind. The constitution gives the states leeway with how to choose and use their electors. What im suggesting is an aggreement among states to pledge their electors proportional to the popular vote in that state instead of as a uniform block. Maybe not an easy task, but maybe easier than an amendment, and close to the same effect. I apologize for the abbreviated sentences. Very tired.

        1. Bryan Caskey

          It’s certainly easier than an amendment. However, if (as you admit) it would have the same effect, why would smaller states sign on? If a candidate simply needs to run up votes in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and other large cities, why would…say Vermont, agree to cast its electoral votes based on how non-Vermonters voted?

          I agree it’s easier (in theory) than amending the Constitution, because everything is, in fact, easier than that. However, in actually doing it, I think it’s still quite difficult.

          But were I of the persuasion to change the electoral college, I’d be looking into persuading states to allocate their electors in a different way because you’re correct in that the states get to decide how the electors are selected.

          1. Mark Stewart

            Bryan, Scout’s proposal wouldn’t give more weight to the big city votes. It would give some voice to the Democrats in SC – and also the Republicans in CA. The small state’s wouldn’t be hurt as they still retain proportionally greater votes over the big states (given the Senatorial count being equal in all states). I think her postulation has merit. Though myself, I prefer that the electors retain the right to go rogue in the defense of the Republic. Tying their votes, whether to winner takes all or to proportional voting does not give us that check.

            At the same time, I wonder when CA is going to decide it would be better off as two, or maybe three, separate states? TX, too, but it is harder to imagine that state breaking up its Republic.

          2. Scout

            “why would…say Vermont, agree to cast its electoral votes based on how non-Vermonters voted?”

            I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. Vermont would cast it’s electoral votes based only on how Vermonters voted, not non-Vermonters. If the state went 70-30 blue/red, then the electoral votes would do the same.

            But I also agree with Mark, having electors be able to go rogue is the best situation. But it just is so rarely done. Getting to a true system where it is the norm for electors to vote their conscious seems harder than this plan or an amendment. If people want popular vote, this seems the easiest most gratifying way, where I know my vote in SC is represented by an electoral vote from SC.

  7. Doug Ross

    Repeat after me:”The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures”

    Now go back to wasting time on a popular vote for President.

    1. Doug Ross

      When Democrats get rid of super delegates in their primary, I’ll believe they are serious about this issue. Hypocrites.

      1. Doug Ross

        As an example, in the primary this year, Bernie Sanders won the popular vote in Wyoming by a 56-42 margin. But Hillary got 11 delegates to Bernie’s 7. Talk about unfair. Start with your own party first.

      2. bud

        This Democrat would gladly like to see an end to the super delegates. The Democrats are hardly perfect, but they’re all we have to serve as a buffer between the tyranny of the GOP and something a bit more pragmatic.

  8. Bill

    While debating potential changes to how the Electoral College works might be worthwhile, it’s not going to produce any result. The Republicans have now benefited twice from the way it currently operates. So it’s in their interest to keep it like it is. And since they are the majority in both Congress and the bulk of state legislatures, the routes to making any changes are foreclosed.

    1. Doug Ross

      Exactly. Instead of wasting time on pipe dreams about changing the way we elect Presidents so Democrats can have a better shot at winning due to demographics and geography, Democrats should instead maybe try to find a candidate and a platform that is more acceptable to people across the country and not just on the coasts.

      Instead, Democrats have returned their young, hip, leadership back into power: Nancy Pelosi (76 years old), Chuck Schumer (66 years old), and Jim Clyburn (76 years old) are the party’s three at the top: West Coast, East Coast, and Diversity Coast. Good luck with that in 2020. Meanwhile, if Trump fails, Republicans can go back to Rubio, Cruz, and a much deeper bench of potential candidates.

      Democrats better wake up and realize that they basically have two years to develop a viable national candidate for President. It’s not Mike O”Malley. And without owning the White House, they can’t develop any national exposure for anyone in a cabinet role.

      1. Doug Ross

        Meanwhile on the other side: Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) is 46, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (La.) are both 51.

        Instead of pushing for a popular vote for President, Democrats would be wise to push instead for term limits to flush out the old guard.

  9. Claus

    After inventing the internet and tackling global warming I suspect that doing away with the electoral college should take Gore until the end of the week to complete.

  10. bud

    I now know what my life’s work will be, getting rid of the vile, disgusting electoral college. I’ve been against it since 1976. Given the 2 horrendous men who benefitted from it it’s more urgent that ever.

    1. Doug Ross

      What are you going to do? Please lay out your plans for accomplishing this goal. I’m assuming by “life’s work” you actually mean “topic I will post frequently about”.

      1. bud

        You know Doug you really have turned into quite a jerk. First you insult my vocation. Now you diss something I feel great passion about. Frankly it’s starting to wear a little thin. Why don’t you go work on some worthless software to peddle.

        1. Doug Ross

          Sorry to burst your bubble but I’ve never sold a piece of software in my life. I’ve only sold myself. So far that’s worked out very well.

          You just have a tendency to make outlandish statements that defy logic and reality. If you can’t stand to have your life’s passion to be questioned, then maybe you’re not really passionate about it.

          1. Doug Ross

            Here’s what I would do if I wanted to change the electoral system as my life’s passion”

            1. Write my congressman and Senators multiple letters expressing my opinion.
            2. Circulate an actual petition and send it to my Congressman and Senators once I had collected a reasonable number of names (1000)
            3. Write an op-ed for The State
            4. Schedule a meeting with my congressman and Senator and travel to D.C. to express my opinion in person
            5. Donate money to candidates who make changing the electoral system their #1 priority

            That would just be the start,

              1. bud

                That’s only because you don’t see this for the danger that it is. We are likely to have a really tumultous 4 years given the very large popular vote win by Hillary. Also, perplexingly the folks who write here seem amazingly indifferent to the rise of the alt-right. Maybe they will remain the fringe of the fringe of the fringe. I suggest they’ve aleady been promoted to the fringe of the fringe. Can garden variety fringe be far behind?

              2. bud

                It’s time to play the analogy card. Bryan let’s say we just elected a president who ran on a platform of abolishing the 2nd amendment. This comes at a time when NRA membership was plummeting. The new anti gun party was gaining ground in congress with 30 senators and 100 house members. You write on Brad’s blog that you are aghast that so many misguided people have taken hold of the very foundation of our founding father’s vision. You decide that gun rights are sacrosanct to our nation and resolve to make gun rights your life’s passion. Then bud responds with:

                1. Find another passion

                Do you A. just blow it off with a comic retort or B. explode in rage at out disgusting and insensitive my comment is and vow challenge this scary trend with a new found vigor.

                Of course this is fantasy but just sit down with a couple of beers and use your imagination. My flippant comment probably doesn’t sound quite so funny does it? But for now I’m going to have a couple of Belgian wheat beers, watch an old movie on TCM and get a good nights sleep so I can rake leaves tomorrow.

                1. Bryan Caskey

                  True. In that situation, I would be quite worried about the direction of our nation, and I can see how dismissive my comment was. I apologize.

                  What are you drinking? A toast: A glass of wine with you, sir!

            1. bud

              It has to be a grass roots effort. And to Bryans point it’s a super longshot. But so was women’s sufferage.

      1. Bryan Caskey

        Fair enough. I’m trying to think of anything I’ve hated since 2000. For context, I was in my freshman year of college at W&L in 2000.

        Hmmmm, the only thing that comes to mind is the auto-play ads on websites. Those are the worst. I hate those things.

Comments are closed.