It ' s the best stage to farm popo for colo tix and keys . <| sep |> New tarmac so did they actually have to redo a bit because of something ? Obviously this wasn ' t in the first episode as they filmed that second . <| sep |> I just checked my dictionary . And it all checks out . if we went back 6 hundred years you wouldn ' t be able time understand someone who spoke English . Language changes , and usually for the better . So it ' s ok to live in the past guys . Do you . <| sep |> Geography is not a red herring here because states themselves are geographical in nature . They are boundaries drawn on a map to group people . Your argument , and most arguments I ' ve seen supporting the EC rely on what we have today . Nobody is arguing what constructs are in place today I don ' t argue that we have an electoral college , or with how we currently allocate votes . I argue that what we have today is not a good system , and that we should change it . Your argument is very similar to drugs illegal because they are bad and drugs are bad because they are illegal . I would be more interested in you providing evidence or arguments about why the system we have today is the best system to achieve the goal of representing the nation . When analyzing a system , the most important things to look at are the edge cases the extremes . Once you have analyzed the extremes , it is easy to see how things change as you shift from one extreme to the other . For instance , let ' s say we had a country with 2 states . One with population of 1 , and one with a population of 1 , 000 . Do you think it makes sense for single resident of the first state to have greater voterpower with regards to the federal government ? I think that you would agree , because you have not argued that every state should have the same number of electoral votes . BTW if you ' re going for the the federal government represents the states , not the people argument , then you should be arguing for equal electoral votes for all states , regardless of population . You should also be arguing for Congress to be evenly distributed in the House as well , instead of proportionally distributed . If you do think they deserve more votepower though , then you are indeed making this about geography , because if a voter moves across the border , they suddenly have stronger ability to influence federal elections . Nothing about that individual has changed other than his location geographically . The other extreme is if we have two states , both with equal population . I think we will both agree that each of these states should have 100 % equal votepower . So if we start with this scenario , and then people start moving around , do you think that their vote should come with them ? Or do you think it makes sense that by only geographically moving that their votepower should change ? If you think that by no other action other than individuals moving residences that their vote power should change , I then ask you to provide reasoning as to why that makes sense .