<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" We haven&amp;#039;t stopped by the intersection of Insufferable Street and Otherwise Unemployable Boulevard for a while, so let&amp;#039;s see what the gang on K-Lo&amp;#039;s front stoop are gassing about these days. Oh, look, it&amp;#039;s the British kid. What&amp;#039;s he on about then? Oh, good. As history teaches us, idle whim is a boffo reason to change a centuries-old constitution. The Hill goes onto explain that: Under the Constitution, the candidate who wins at least 270 electoral votes wins the presidency, regardless of the popular vote. Yes, that&amp;#039;s because this is a federal system in which the states vote for the president and there is no such thing as the &amp;quot;popular vote.&amp;quot; The prospect of a split between the popular vote and the Electoral College usually provokes cries of abolishing the Electoral College completely, but rather than simplifying the process, Israel&amp;#039;s resolution would add an additional level of intrigue to the electoral puzzle. (As it happens, I caught Young Master Cooke&amp;#039;s act in Zuccotti Park last year, as he wandered among the wogs of the Occupy movement. Everybody thought the smug little prick was funnier than whistling fish. And, if your question happens to be, &amp;quot;Jesus, is he as obnoxious as this post makes him out to be?&amp;quot;, the answer is even more so.) Sub-Leften&amp;#039;nt Blimp goes on to Explain America to you.... If President Obama wins the electoral college, he wins the election. The &amp;quot;popular vote&amp;quot; is utterly irrelevant. These are the United States \u2014 yes, that&amp;#039;s United States and not American Districts \u2014 and that&amp;#039;s how it works. There is no national election, as such. Those who would abolish the electoral college have to answer clearly how exactly they see the states - which are not merely regional departments of the federal government \u2014 and, for that matter, why they don&amp;#039;t also want to abolish the Senate. Actually, no. The elimination of the Electoral College does not change the relationship of the state and federal governments at all. It would change the relationship of the states to each other within the context of electing the president. Small states would feel disenfranchised not in relation to the federal government, but in relation to the larger states. That&amp;#039;s why we have an Electoral College in the first place. Eliminate it, and the status of the states within the federal system does not change. We can keep arguing about it in the same way we&amp;#039;ve been arguing about it since 1787. But I do agree with Little Lord Punchyface on one thing: The Constitution should not be changed on an &amp;quot;idle whim.&amp;quot; This is why I am opposed to a constitutional amendment to declare that life begins at conception, a constitutional amendment that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and a constitutional amendment to mandate a balanced-budget, aka The Worst Idea Ever. All of which are contained in this year&amp;#039;s Republican platform, endorsed by both members of this year&amp;#039;s Republican national ticket, considered unshakable orthodoxy within the party and within the conservative movement at large, and just some of the favorite things ever by the gang playing Pin The Tail On The Mooslim down at Mark Steyn&amp;#039;s Malt Shoppe. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a16424/charles-cw-cooke-constitution-14125548/>