In your honest opinion, who do you think has the best chance of becoming POTUS?

[ReijiTabibito]

(Preceding statement - clicking hotlinks are not your friend.)

Almost every negative comment I've heard about Secretary Clinton comes based on questionable sources, hearsay, lies from others and innuendo. 

If you want to discount every statement from the Trump campaign WRT Hillary, I'm absolutely behind that.  However, I would point out that the campaign is getting pasted in the face largely by its own people and own statements - the Podesta e-mails, the Wikileaks revelations, the revelation of corruption within the DNC WRT things like primaries (you want to talk about voter suppression by the RNC, guys?  Clean your own house first.) and other matters of the election.

As for hearsay, I would point out that hearsay matters only in courts of law, and not the court of public opinion where every election is tried.  Plus, the United States has over a dozen exception to the hearsay rule, and I'm sure if legally pressed, some of that stuff could be admitted as exceptions to hearsay.

Plus, hearsay really only works when you're getting only one side of a conversation.  If I ask Alice to tell me what Bob said in a courtroom, and Bob is not available for cross-examination, then that is hearsay and inadmissible.  On the flipside, if Bob is available for cross about the conversation he had with Alice, then Alice's statement is no longer hearsay.  In short, hearsay only comes up in TV courtroom land, or when one of the lawyers is not very good at his job.

I'll go with the person who actually has worked hard for this country and cares more about the job than looking pretty, sounding sweet and sucking up to the people who can't stand her.

(Emphasis mine.)

Except that's what she's been doing for a good portion of the general election.  If by 'people who can't stand her,' you mean Republicans, then why has she been running to the right on issues since she won the primary?  She could have had everything tied up if she'd run to the left and courted people who had supported Bernie Sanders (instead of dismissing them as 'Bernie Bros' or part of her 'basket of deplorables' catch-all), because the country is slowly tilting towards the left.  Her own advisors told her to knock off the negativity when it came to Sanders supporters because they understood that she would need them to help win the election.  HRC has employed the typical strategy of appealing to her base as widely as possible to get the nomination, and then moving to the other side of the spectrum in order to get crossover, in-the-middle voters, when she absolutely did not need to, and has probably ended up alienating some of her own voting base by trying to appeal to the right.

Yes, only that Clinton has also been looked at through the lense of the "usual media outlets" for about twenty damn years!

Granted, but there would be a couple questions I'd like to have answered about that.

A: how much, as a percentage of the media coverage surrounding her and her family, of that was covering the various scandals she's been embroiled in during those decades?

B: how much time has the media spent covering her (or she's been on media outlets) versus Trump?

Because it's worth pointing out that Trump has been in the 'usual media outlets' for quite some time, too.  I'm not sure how much time, or how long - I can at least say since the Apprentice started a dozen years ago, but I've seen interviews with him going back farther than the start of the millennium.

The way you paint it makes it look like Trump has been the focus of a national media campaign and Clinton hasn't, and that is ... You know, there are a lot of things I could call this, but I won't. It's not that I couldn't, but it would be bad if I called it what you know I want to call it, so I won't call it that. Unless I have to call it that to get some more media attention. In short, I call the Trump defense for not saying what you know I am actually saying.

Okay, first quick nitpick.  Saying that Trump or HRC has been the focus of a national media campaign means inherently nothing.  Underage drinking has been the focus of a national media campaign.  All that 'a national media campaign' means is that you have been the subject of a concerted effort by the media to be covered on a national-scale.

That out of the way, I do know more or less what you're saying.  Basically, you're saying that I'm saying Trump has gotten all of this negative press from the media, but the media has had nothing but delightful things to say about HRC.  Which is bollocks, anyone who has been alive for those past twenty years and is an adult today knows that's a snide insinuation/disingenuous assertion/insert Mass Effect Shepard-PAWNCH phrase here.

The difference then was that the media owned their bad press when those stories came out, when they came to light.  Asking people to ignore all those years of bad press, to pretend like they had never happened, or to pretend that that shouldn't somehow influence people's choice in an election?  That is the real snide insinuation/disingenuous assertion/insert Mass Effect Shepard-PAWNCH phrase here.

(Also, second quick nitpick.  News, get your terminology right.  First woman president of the United States/our country - not first woman in the White House [Dolly Madison would like to talk to you about that]; not first woman in the Oval Office [ask Bill about that]; and not first woman President [a dozen other countries have had them before!].  Also, Edith Wilson would like to challenge that assertion, too.)

Do you remember why Hillary got the boot in 2008, and Obama got the nod?  It was over the Iraq War - Obama had been against the idea, but Hillary had voted for it.  And this wasn't one of those situations where the decision to engage in the war got snuck into another bill which had some provision that Hillary wanted to support - it was explicitly with regards to Iraq.  The media and the Dems were on a criticize-the-war kick at the time (the right one, IMO), and so they did not want to pick as their champion someone who had actually voted for the damn thing, because that opened up a whole barrel of hypocrisy right there.  Their goal - stopping the Iraq war and its disastrous consequences - took priority in the selection of their candidate, so even though HRC was more experienced and prepared, the party moved ahead with Obama.  (And in my opinion, that's how it should be - you pick a candidate based on what you want to have happen in government, not because of some BS like party loyalty.)

It's also worth pointing out that I don't give a shit who the media supports, whether it's Trump or HRC.  I did not participate in that study I quoted from Suffolk, I only heard about it, and secondly, I was simply pointing out the primary conduit by which bad news has come to us regarding each candidate.  Has the mainstream media picked up the resumption of the FBI probe into e-mails?  Have they followed and reported on the bad press?  Sure.  What I'm saying is that if it had been left up to them, the mainstream media would have killed these stories because they'd rather a President Clinton than a President Trump.  At best, that's a conjecture we'll never be able to prove, simply because of how the events turned out.

Say Trump's name and people groan.

That or they cheer.  And I'm not sure which one is worse.

I interview a lot of people for jobs, not only here where I work but in the initial screening process for some of our clients.  None of them would get a second interview in my process.

Forget an interview, it sounds like none of the candidates this cycle would get past your resume filter.  (Presuming you use one of those.)

That was have gotten the two most-disliked and controversial presidential candidates in the history of the nation has proven something important, though - when you interview someone for your clients, you know exactly what they need, the kind of skills that the position requires, and the temperament of a successful applicant.  You are, in short, an expert in determining those things.

Your average American is not.  Your average American has little to no clue of what they're doing in the process, they're stumbling along in the dark trying to find their way, they are not an expert, and in the case of some, even amateur is too gracious.  That needs to change, people need to care less about Brangelina's breakup or Tom Cruise being a Scientologist or whatever the latest thing the Kardashians did and more about who runs their country and why they want to run the country.

It won't be easy - the political elites of the country want to basically run things with a free hand without accountability (for as much as the word actually gets thrown around, it sticks so very little) to the people who elect them - but it is possible.

[TheGlyphstone]

Both FDR and Reagan came to the Oval Office with name recognition and a power base as well as proven credentials in the careers and offices they held previously.  The same could be said of many of the other presidents as well.

Say Trump's name and people groan.  Say the names of the others and most people say, "Who?"  They've all proven themselves to be not up to the bar for what is needed to run this country. 

I interview a lot of people for jobs, not only here where I work but in the initial screening process for some of our clients.  None of them would get a second interview in my process.

The lack of name recognition and power base is more a fault of the two-party entrenchment, though, rather than a reflection of the candidates' qualifications themselves. Stein and Johnson are practically unknown because they're third-party candidates completely lacking in the multi-million-dollar fundraising and publicity engines that the GOP and Democrats possess. Granted, I also don't think Stein is qualified (see above), but I do think Johnson would make a credible candidate for the moderate wing of the GOP even if I don't agree with basically any of his positions or platform policies.

[Cassandra LeMay]

I have no direct stake in the US elections, given that I am a German citizen living in Germany, but I would like to say this:

I am a cold war kid. I grew up at the south end of the Fulda Gap. By the age of seven I felt that the American soldiers stationed in our area were the one thing stopping the Russians from invading our country. I grew up afraid that if the next war in Europe starts, my life would end in a mushroom cloud. And when my parents and I visited the nearest town for shopping I would see the American soldiers in the streets and smile at them as a little kid because I felt they made me safe. They were what stood between the little kid I was and total war.

And you know what? No other geoploitical event since the Cold War scared me as much as the upcomming US election.

The idea that Donald Trump might become the next president of the United States -literally- scares me as much now that I am going on 50, as the thought of Russian nukes raining down on my hometown has scared me when it was 10 years old. And I am not using the word 'literally' lightly here.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The lack of name recognition and power base is more a fault of the two-party entrenchment, though, rather than a reflection of the candidates' qualifications themselves. Stein and Johnson are practically unknown because they're third-party candidates completely lacking in the multi-million-dollar fundraising and publicity engines that the GOP and Democrats possess. Granted, I also don't think Stein is qualified (see above), but I do think Johnson would make a credible candidate for the moderate wing of the GOP even if I don't agree with basically any of his positions or platform policies.

There is a lot of truth in what you say but once the election is over and there are no dogs in the fight the emphasis is going to be on getting the job done in Congress.  Obama couldn't fight a GOP Congress stacked against him.  Someone like Johnson doesn't stand even that much of a chance and his lack of experience in dealing with cutthroat politics is going to cost this country too much to make him worth the chance.  He'll be ignored unless he does what he is told to do because he'll have no power.  A man who can't study up on world geography and international issues to get things right and passes off his faux pas with a joke doesn't build faith or credibility.

We need a strong person in the Oval Office and one who understands how things work and knows where things stand in the world. 

The idea that Donald Trump might become the next president of the United States -literally- scares me as much now that I am going on 50, as the thought of Russian nukes raining down on my hometown has scared me when it was 10 years old. And I am not using the word 'literally' lightly here.

I've read history books about the Nazi era and the charismatic hold Hitler had over his followers.  He had military power behind him which made him more successful than Trump is right now.  But Trump and his advocates remind me of the Brown Shirts in those books.  Trump frightens me.  He disgusts me.  He turns my stomach and leaves me shaking in fear of where he'll lead this country if he has a chance.  He cares for no one and nothing but himself and what he has.  And worse than Trump is the fear that someone will try to eliminate him and we'll be stuck with Pence.

[TheGlyphstone]

Trump might not have the official army backing him, but he's got a hell of a lot of right-wing militia nuts in his camp.

[Cassandra LeMay]

We need a strong person in the Oval Office and one who understands how things work and knows where things stand in the world. 

That and a House and Senate that actually allows that person to do the things that need to be done.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Trump might not have the official army backing him, but he's got a hell of a lot of right-wing militia nuts in his camp.

This is also something that worries me.  These people can be maniacs and they've already been making threats.  From what I understand quite a few state governments and police forces as well as county and local police departments are gearing up for violence should Secretary Clinton win the election.  I have friends in police departments around the country and many of them have been assigned double shifts starting next Monday.

[ReijiTabibito]

That and a House and Senate that actaully alloows that person to do the things that need to be done.

This.  A thousand times this.  The whole reason Obama was never able to get much done in his administration is because the Republicans blocked him at every turn - there's even been a story that says the Republicans in Congress will deny any SCOTUS nomination that comes from a Democrat.  That they were doing this should not be a surprise - Senate Majority Leader Tortoise said explicitly after the 2008 election that the goal of every Republican should be to deny Obama a second term.  This is not made up, there is actual news footage of him during a press conferences saying this.

In short, I could give a shit about who becomes President, but I damn well care about who my Congressman is.

[Oniya]

I damn well care about who my Congressman is.

+1 on this.  I was positively gleeful to find out I have the opportunity to oust Toomey.

[Beguile's Mistress]

+1 on this.  I was positively gleeful to find out I have the opportunity to oust Toomey.

You and me both.  Katie has to win.

[gaggedLouise]

Apparently the in-house newspaper of the Klan has officially endorsed Trump (mentioned, of course, by Clinton in a speech)  Even if Trump's campaign people rebuffed the warm embrace, it does say something about what kind of emotions and "ideas" he is tapping into.

[CuriousEyes]

Question for debate - should the popular vote replace the electoral college for Presidential elections?

Or maybe a hybrid system similar to the primary delegates? Keep the EC, but allocate an additional number of votes that are required to be distributed along the national popular vote. Say 50 or 100 votes, with the point to clinch the nomination adjusted accordingly.

Would this help or hurt the process? Would elections become less about targeting narrow victories and more about broad appeal?

I suspect it would effectively end the Republican party in its current form as a group that could reach the White House. But what do you say (general you)?

[Missy]

In terms of idealistic democratic values or pragmatic objectivity?

Personally I couldn't blame anyone for believing common democracy to be the ultimately best system in existence, but can we properly sustain that without a collapse? Look at where we are, we have possibly the two worst candidates in ever and any rational individuals seriously questions the common citizens ability to participate in the democratic process in a determidly informed and educated format.

[Oniya]

The Electoral College is a flawed system.  It's worth noting that whenever the US has helped another country set up a democratic voting system, we have not introduced the idea of an Electoral College.  It's even possible for someone to win a majority of the electoral votes with only 22% of the popular vote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu1Z5ZHUD68

The problems I see with going to a popular vote:

1) Voter registration.  If this is going to work, every eligible person needs to be registered to vote.  This has been helped some with 'Motor Voter' setups - when you get your license and are over 18, you can check a box to register.  Some states have made registration an 'opt-out' rather than the 'opt-in' system that we have in most of the US - once you turn 18, you are registered.  (Party preference is still 'opt-in'.)

2) Voter education.  Last night, I heard my neighbor across the street declaiming that she 'wanted to vote, but wasn't registered and didn't know how'.  Pretty sure the registration date's been and gone for PA.  Also included in this would be providing information about candidates and their stances in an easily accessible, impartial and well-researched format - as opposed to the rumors, smear ads and outright falsifications we see in ads and social media.

3) Poll accessibility.  Not only as far as location, but as far as timing.  During the primaries, polling locations were shut down, and lines were horrendous in some places.  Employers are required to give a certain amount of time for people to vote, but many people can't afford to be unpaid for the length of time that they had to wait.  A national holiday with pay like we have for Memorial Day would cover some of that hole.  Keeping locations open, regardless of 'expected turnout' would cover another part, which brings me to the next point.

4) Voter apathy.  This is a big one.  I've heard that some countries have 'mandatory voting', and I'd love to know how they go about that. I think that would be a step in the right direction as well.

5) Election integrity.  This is the other big one.  Whatever method that is used has to ensure that the votes that go in to a system are the same as the votes that come out of the system.  As someone said once:  'My grocery store is able to print out a receipt that tells me what items I purchased at a particular date and time in case of a dispute.  Why can't my polling station?'

[Cassandra LeMay]

2) Voter education.  Last night, I heard my neighbor across the street declaiming that she 'wanted to vote, but wasn't registered and didn't know how'.  Pretty sure the registration date's been and gone for PA. 

Is she certain she isn't registered? Perhaps she was registered years ago and has just forgotten about it? If she didn't have a change of name or address that registration should still be valid. Perhaps she should make certain: https://www.pavoterservices.state.pa.us/Pages/VoterRegistrationStatus.aspx

[CuriousEyes]

I believe most countries with mandatory voting just apply a small fine it you fail to do so. In Australia it's $20 for first time offenders and $50 thereafter. Not a criminal penalty, but just a small poke.

I have problems on some level with compulsory voting. I'd be more on board were there better measures taken to educate voters on candidate positions in an objective manner. A side-by-side policy proposal sheet for example with third party comments about projected costs of proposals. I believe one of the Nordic countries provides something like that with elections, but could be mistaken.

[Oniya]

I have problems on some level with compulsory voting. I'd be more on board were there better measures taken to educate voters on candidate positions in an objective manner. A side-by-side policy proposal sheet for example with third party comments about projected costs of proposals. I believe one of the Nordic countries provides something like that with elections, but could be mistaken.

*nods*  Something like this would fit under my second point.  It's definitely a multi-headed beastie.  I'm pretty sure that there are other ways to combat voter apathy as well, but the key point is to eliminate the 'I didn't vote because I didn't feel like it.'

[Valerian]

I believe most countries with mandatory voting just apply a small fine it you fail to do so. In Australia it's $20 for first time offenders and $50 thereafter. Not a criminal penalty, but just a small poke.

I have problems on some level with compulsory voting. I'd be more on board were there better measures taken to educate voters on candidate positions in an objective manner. A side-by-side policy proposal sheet for example with third party comments about projected costs of proposals. I believe one of the Nordic countries provides something like that with elections, but could be mistaken.

Not too long ago I read an article on Cracked (yes, Cracked, but they usually do a decent job of research) that gives some examples of penalties in such countries, beyond the typical fines:

In Belgium, missing four consecutive voting opportunities will lead to the loss of your right to vote for the next 10 years. In case that sounds like a reward, it also means your job prospects go way down, as the civil service won't even look at your resume. Refusing to be democratic can also hurt your wallet in Bolivia, where failure to show your "I Voted" card at the bank can prevent you from accessing the money you already worked for. And if you refuse to vote in Italy, good luck finding a daycare center willing to take your kids while you're off not voting.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Those countries seem to be more invested in getting their people to the polls, where as here in the US some of our officials are working on ways to keep people from voting by restricting their ability to get the necessary ID cards, closing polling places and limiting accessibility to those that do exist.  We don't have much of a problem here in Pittsburgh, or most of Pennsylvania, but our Southern states and many rural areas, where there are heavy minority populations, have been hard hit in many ways. 

[Oniya]

Those countries seem to be more invested in getting their people to the polls, where as here in the US some of our officials are working on ways to keep people from voting by restricting their ability to get the necessary ID cards, closing polling places and limiting accessibility to those that do exist.  We don't have much of a problem here in Pittsburgh, or most of Pennsylvania, but our Southern states and many rural areas, where there are heavy minority populations, have been hard hit in many ways.

Precisely my point.  I'd heard so many stories of difficulties that I had a 'voting survival kit' prepared in case of problems:  My registration card, my State ID, phone numbers for those 'if you experience difficulty voting' hotlines, as well as the local pizza place (in case the line was that long.)  None of it was needed (as BeMi indicated, PA wasn't badly hit), but there were polling stations closed all over New England, and such precautions (including the pizza!) might have been well-warranted up there.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Where I vote my biggest problem is remembering the right district for me to vote in.  We have two or three at our location and all I have to do is walk in, give my name, sign my card and wait for a machine to open up.  I'll stop on my way home from work and only add about 15 minutes to my travel time.  Everyone needs that sort of ease on election day.

[ReijiTabibito]

Or holding closed primaries where you have to be registered to a party in order to cast your vote - though I think that that would fall under the banner of 'limiting accessibility.'

Something we have to consider when talking about the electoral college - the world as it existed 200 years ago, when the college was constructed and set in motion, could not have foreseen what the future would be like.  At the time, yes, the electoral college made the most sense, for a couple particular reasons.

1: Travel.  Travel was done by horse or wagon, or if you were poor on foot, in those days.  New York to Philadelphia - two of the really big cities in that era - are about 90 miles apart.  Consider that in those days, covering 20 miles a day on foot was considered quite a distance, that means it would take you about 4-5 days to walk from one city to the next.

Horses, if they weren't hitched to anything, had a speed of about 8-12 miles an hour if you set them at a trot - something sustainable for the horse for long distances, and thus providing consistent measure.  Even at that speed, though, you were still talking at least a day to get from one city to the next, and that's if you were riding all day.

Today, travel is different.  I can drive from NYC to Philadelphia in about two hours.  A journey from coast to coast - which ranges from 2600 to 3200 miles - I can do in a day with the assistance of modern jet aircraft.  In the years leading up to the Civil War, travel from the East to the recently-acquired California was done by boat.  And there was no Panama Canal in those days, they had to go all the way down around South America and then come back all the way up.  The trip took months, but it was considered almost as fast as having to travel the frontier direct, even though the distances were vastly different.

2: How the college actually works.  Yes, how the system works today is actually a bit different from how it was when it was first implemented.  The college of today is done primarily in a 'winner-takes-all' style, and has been as such since about the 1880s.  (The two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska.  Go Mainers!)  That is, if (we say) Donald Trump takes over 50% of the vote in Texas, he will get all of Texas' 38 electoral votes.  This is how Oniya's scenario of someone winning the presidency with just a little over 20% of the popular vote can be done, which is frankly quite ridiculous.


As for 'mandated voting,' that is a potentially deadly hydra.  Yes, it would absolutely increase participation in elections - one of the major problems Democrats have faced in the past is getting clobbered in the midterm elections because of their inability to motivate their base to go out and vote those times - but I'm in agreement with Curious. If we want mandated voting, then we need to put into place a way for voters to educate themselves on the issues and where the various campaigners stand (and that will require the bane of politicians everywhere - actually explaining what you intend to do).

Otherwise, if we mandate voting, but don't have that in place, it's a politician's dream - a bunch of people forced to vote, who know nothing about the facts and issues and candidate opinions on them, or worse.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again - authoritarians want high voter turnout, but low voter knowledge.  That's because of the mistaken idea we have today that the more people agree on something, the more legitimate it sounds.  I think people can agree that saying '97% of Americans want universal background checks for buying firearms' is a positive example of that, but saying that '86% of Americans agree that broccoli tastes disgusting' is not.  People go along to get along, and being seen as challenging a widely held belief is not a surefire way to win friends.

[Beguile's Mistress]

The electoral college was instituted because the founding fathers where timid when it came to democracy.  They wanted to avoid a situation where a group could take control of the government for what may be nefarious or inappropriate reasons.  Take a look at the following:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/

Also, these days states are still trying to hang on to their autonomy (States Rights) and avoid a federal or national influence on how they do things.  This is also why we have the primary systems we have.  Things aren't perfect but they work and will work until something better - and proven - comes along.  Change simply for the sake of change is seldom a good thing.

[Oniya]

*nods*  Apathy and integrity are the biggest two, but it's a close call - like the first three together cover 50% of the problem, and the last 2 the other 50%, or something like that.  Also, fixing certain things would affect the others:  If you knew that your vote was going to be properly entered and counted (point 5), you'd be less likely to say that 'it didn't matter' (point 4).  If you knew that your local pol (or national pol) was routinely voting for things that hurt your demographic (despite what they said in their campaign ads) (point 2), you'd be more likely to vote just to get them out (also point 4).

The 22% example is ridiculous on the surface, because the strategy involves getting a lot of electoral-dense states, which tend to be the smaller ones, rather than the usual prime targets, but it does show how the current system is pretty borked.

1: Travel.  Travel was done by horse or wagon, or if you were poor on foot, in those days.  New York to Philadelphia - two of the really big cities in that era - are about 90 miles apart.  Consider that in those days, covering 20 miles a day on foot was considered quite a distance, that means it would take you about 4-5 days to walk from one city to the next.

Horses, if they weren't hitched to anything, had a speed of about 8-12 miles an hour if you set them at a trot - something sustainable for the horse for long distances, and thus providing consistent measure.  Even at that speed, though, you were still talking at least a day to get from one city to the next, and that's if you were riding all day.

Today, travel is different.  I can drive from NYC to Philadelphia in about two hours.  A journey from coast to coast - which ranges from 2600 to 3200 miles - I can do in a day with the assistance of modern jet aircraft.  In the years leading up to the Civil War, travel from the East to the recently-acquired California was done by boat.  And there was no Panama Canal in those days, they had to go all the way down around South America and then come back all the way up.  The trip took months, but it was considered almost as fast as having to travel the frontier direct, even though the distances were vastly different.

I'm a little surprised that you didn't mention the fact that we can now communicate between any two points on the globe literally at light-speed - maybe a little longer if you're still on copper wiring.  (Which I think I am...)

[ReijiTabibito]

The electoral college was instituted because the founding fathers where timid when it came to democracy.  They wanted to avoid a situation where a group could take control of the government for what may be nefarious or inappropriate reasons.  Take a look at the following:

Yep.  I remember Madison.  Was going to get him into my post somehow, but didn't seem to really fit anywhere in my line of dissertation.  And it didn't do us a lot of good, did it?  We've basically got groups - whether you think they're red or blue or even just green - who can do that now.  I understand Madison's fear of submitting wholly to a popular vote - it's one I usually share by using the line from The Patriot: "Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

But the system we've got isn't working.  It's riddled with corruption.  And those who corrupted it know that even if they don't participate in it, they will face opponents who will.  It's a lot like the situation you see in American Gangster with the Crowe character, the cop trying to bring down Frank Lucas.  I'm more an advocate for personal responsibility and teaching virtue to our young people and trying to re-instill virtue with the rest, but our insane 'have it my way' culture would like to have a few words with me about that.  It's not like people have ever said anything about it taking a village to OH WAIT.

I'm a little surprised that you didn't mention the fact that we can now communicate between any two points on the globe literally at light-speed - maybe a little longer if you're still on copper wiring.  (Which I think I am...)

In those days, travel was communication.  I doubt the luminaries of that era could have anticipated things like radio, the internet, Skype...hell, even the telephone!  (The telegraph was not all that far off from those early days, the first telegraph in the US was patented in 1837, and it was first conceived of well before then.)  When you wanted to communicate, you sent letters, which had to travel by postman or horse or ship.  But your point is taken.  Hell, one of my more favorite comedians (those who know the nickname Fluffy know who I'm referring to) said that we could run the election like American Idol!