The article Hillary’s Popular Vote Holdouts on Collision Course with History was very interesting, in my opinion. In the beginning, the author spoke about how the popular vote has basically no meaning behind it, the candidate can win the popular vote and still be far from winning the election due to the votes in the electoral college. I do not believe that this is how elections should be run. Candidates should win based on the entire population that voted and the government that they want to live under, not a few government officials. Elections have now turned into a competition where the candidates are not running to please the people anymore, but please the government. As Polizette stated, “No one, including Hillary Clinton, was trying to …show more content…
Football games are decided by the final score at the end, but the points that are scored in between are counted as well, not just the last one that was scored. This is exactly how the election should be run. The government should take into account every point that each candidate gains through the popular and electoral vote and total the points at the end to see who won. Polizette then went on to speak about the responsibilities that each state has their own legal power and control over, “The United States is not just a union of individuals — it is also a Union of States. Under our system, the states are not merely provinces to carry out instructions from Washington; they are the building blocks of the nation, with legal power and meaning of their own.” But, I believe that they are contradicting themselves with what they said before. They had said previously that each state 's popular votes do not matter, but now they are saying that each state has their own rights which, in turn, helps to create the United States of