For help on how to follow a comic title, click here
Agreed. Same with the comment on Doug Jones, above.
From a comment I made in response to Superposition and SadAndConfused above, no one likes when the Electoral College selects the candidate that lost the popular vote. In that response, I argued that, while a direct popular election might be more accurate in its results, it would result in another problem: The neglect of presidential candidates to lesser populous states. Example: Maine and Nebraska already apportion their Electoral votes. They have only four or five Electoral votes apiece, anyway, and those votes can be split because they are apportioned. My question is: Why would any presidential candidate waste time or money campaigning in a state that only has four Electoral votes and may end up a two-two split? And my next argument: Would direct popular election of the president be any different (than my example of Maine and Nebraska)? // Bottom line: Direct election of the president may produce more accurate results – but also result in less attention given to states without major cities in them!
Not that I’m a fan of the Electoral College, either. It is an anachronism from a time when popular vote would have been impractical to impossible. But I’m not optimistic that anything we could devise would be significantly better. No one likes it when the Electoral College selects other than the candidate that won the popular vote. But I fear a system that, while it may be exact in its results, would encourage further neglect of even larger swaths of the nation. I want presidential candidates to campaign in all 50 states!
And while some might argue that cities are suffering under the tyranny of rural states that swung the Electoral College in Trump’s favor, may I point out that this was Hillary’s mistake? After all, she’s the one who got overconfident and campaigned in solid red states and neglected to campaign in purple – and wavering blue – states.
I fully agree with your sentiment. But I fear that an apportioned Electoral College will only make things worse. Example: Maine and Nebraska already apportion their Electoral votes. Already a small number of Electors, and the block can be split. As in, why would a presidential candidate bother to waste time or money in those states? Counter argument: If all states apportioned their Electors, again, still the only states worth campaigning in would be California, New York, Illinois, and other states with oversized cities. Maine and Nebraska would still be ignored. Counter-counter argument: I suppose nothing would change if we went to a straight popular vote. Bottom line: Winner-take-all Electoral College at least forces SOME attention to be spent on lesser populous states.
I still have the haunting feeling that, especially since this is not the original Moon Maid, that Mysta is expendable, and may not make it past the end of this story!
Still mulling over just where Mike and Joe are taking this story – and its characters. Bribery can’t keep escaping alive forever. And once he’s gone, what use will there be in keeping Mysta or Honeymoon around? Granted, Honeymoon will be harder to get rid of, but then, as Junior ’s wife, the original Moon Maid was hard to get rid of.
But a caution is due: There are aspects of this story that are a bit too similar to the original story. Bribery is one, of course. Ugly Crystal looks a lot like Ugly Christine though, as a child, may not be the hardened criminal her mother had been. But, if that were the case, why introduce her at all?
Shout out to whomever it was who originally shared that link to Dick Tracy 23 Jul 66! I learned a lot about the current cast of characters reading through that summer’s worth of strips!
Methinks T-Bolt is in danger! Think of Moon Maid ’s demise!