Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsCalifornia

Step aside and let New York and California decide the presidency

April 16, 2012|By Paul Whitefield
  • Cyclists make their way east down 7th Street near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles during CicLAvia on Sunday. Why shouldn't such savvy, sun-splashed folks decide the presidency?
Cyclists make their way east down 7th Street near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles… (Genaro Molina / Los Angeles…)

Is it just me, or are you too starting to feel a little left out of this presidential race?

Because, The Times’ Mark Z. Barabak reported Sunday, California -- heck, for that matter most of the states -- won’t count in November.

Instead, President Obama and, presumably, Mitt Romney will battle over -- and the race will be decided by -- voters in about half a dozen states, including (sigh, again) Florida, plus Ohio and such stalwarts as Nevada, Iowa and New Hampshire.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS: Presidential Election 2012

Isn’t democracy great?  The next president may be elected by a bunch of senior citizens who can’t figure out a ballot and another group of folks whose idea of sophistication is neon lights and Celine Dion.

(No, I don’t think my heart will go on!)

Now, I like Iowa.  If I want bacon or corn on the cob, Iowa is one of my favorite spots. I’m less familiar with Ohio, though I enjoyed watching the Cincinnati Reds growing up, and I’ve always been amused by the story of the time Cleveland’s river caught fire.

But I don’t want those states picking the president.

Of course, about here you think I'm going to give you one of those learned arguments about doing away with the electoral college.  Wrong. I don’t know about you, but the minute I read the words “electoral college,” I’m back in high school civics class, and I start to doze off.

My solution is much simpler: Let just New York and California decide.

New York is home to the world’s greatest city.  It’s the financial capital of the nation. Plus the people there are pushy, opinionated go-getters (in other words, real Americans).

California is the most populous state.  Its economy -- both agriculture and high-tech --  is enormous. Plus Los Angeles is where the movie stars live, and it’s warm and sunny all the time, meaning the people here are mellow and opinionated (in other words, real Americans but with a bit less go-getter-tude).

If New York is where all the money is made (checked your 401(k) lately?), and California is where all the culture is made (go ahead, argue with me that “The Matrix” isn’t culture), then why shouldn’t these two states choose the president?

I hear Texans screaming already.  Well, sorry, Chuckwagon: Your governor is Rick Perry,  and your other governor was George W. Bush. With apologies to the Who, we won’t get fooled again.

Florida? Sunny, yes, but old. Ohio? Two words: Rust Belt.  New Hampshire? Seriously, you’re lucky to be a state. Iowa? Most of the state moved to Long Beach decades ago. Nevada? Don’t bet on it.

It’s time to let the grown-ups run things. 

Just sit back, let us make the money, make the movies -- and make the president.

Don’t like it?

You can always move.

ALSO:

Beyond the 'Buffett rule'

McManus: The bottom line on taxes

Political sugar daddies: It didn't start with Citizens United

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|