What a historic week. I don't care what your political affiliation is (FYI, I claim none), but to see a minority accept the presidential nomination from one party, and the other with a woman on the ticket for the first time is quite the remarkable pair of moments. There's the old patriotic cliche, "Only in America." I'd say this falls under the category of "Finally in America..."
Regardless of who I vote for in November (FYI, I'm undecided right now), I just have a feeling rattling in my gut that my vote really doesn't "count."
This will be my third presidential election in which to vote. My first two ballots -- one in Indiana, one here -- were cast in states that weren't so-called swing states. There wasn't any doubt about the winners, and I knew that when I went into the voting booth.
Three times in American history (1876, 1888 and 2000), the winner of the popular vote was the loser of the electoral college. Historians can debate what wins for Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland and Al Gore would have meant for the country. I will not.
My internal debate is whether a vote in Connecticut should mean less than one in California, or if Texans as a whole should mean more in deciding a commander-in-chief than Hoosiers.
While polls show something like 10 percent of voters undecided in this country, what really matters are the 15 or so states that aren't colored red or blue on political maps and the voters there. Barack Obama won't be addressing residents of Dallas often, if at all. John McCain may make a fundraising trip to Houston a few times, but there won't be town hall meetings in Corpus or Canyon or College Station.
Of course, if the Democrats swing the state back a bit (color Texas blue like the bluebonnets, they say), then we'll see a candidate or two (dozen) here. That's not likely this year.
So on the topic of the electoral college, in your opinion, is it an appropriate system for us or not? Leave your opinions in the form up top.