Question for Chet Culver, Mike Mauro and the entire Republican Party of Iowa
Is getting to see a candidate a couple times in the fall of a leap year (after we've all met all of them repeatedly for the entire preceding year) REALLY more important than the person with the most votes winning?!? Because that's what the argument of our "influence" really is: a statement that the process of where candidates campaign is more important than the fundamental principle that the majority rules.
Gronstal wants National Popular Vote; Culver doesn't. Will this get vetoed, or will it just not pass?
And do Real People who don't argue about this on political blogs even care? My guess is no. If there wasn't an uprising after 2000, there won't be one now.