No, I asked a specific query in regards to Iguanaman’s suggestion of abolishing the EC is a win-win as equal campaigning in all states would commence. Iguanaman’s point being the EC is an impediment to equal campaigning in all states, and once removed, equal campaigning in all states would occur.
The inference to be drawn from that logic was that the least populace state, Wyoming, a state candidates presently stop in to piss on the side of the road while traversing through in route to more important electoral college states, would no longer be the port-a-potty state once the EC is gone. Instead, abolishing the EC transforms the piss-in-state of Wyoming, to a state canvassed by candidates equally to other states, like Cali.
I then asked Iguanaman if he really believed abolishing the EC was going to transform Wyoming to state enjoying equal campaigning to that of Cali?
You interjected with irrelevant remark.
So, how is your remark germane to any of that exchange, and the reasonable inferences I inquired about? It doesn’t but knock yourself out trying to rationalize otherwise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk