Fascinating review; and of course "red v blue" is shorthand for rural v urban -- which in turn is partly just a state of mind. The supersizing of small rural states in the U.S. Senate and the electoral college, which stands democracy on its head and makes it impossible for any candidate who is to the left of Carter/Clinton to ever be "elected" president, should be well known to Salon's readers. But here's something else that's not as well known:

The House is cited by conservatives as proof that America prefers republicans. After all, the size of each congressional district is determined solely by population; but consider this: my state in the last few elections has voted 52-54% Red and 46-48% Blue. Yet its congressional delegation is consistently 80% republican. This is because "metros" are mostly concentrated within a few urban districts, while rural "homelanders" are spread around the rest of the state. This is also true for the three states cited as shifting purple: Arizona (Phoenix, Tucson), Colorado (Denver, Boulder), Nevada (Las Vegas, Reno).

The unfair, built-in advantage of Rural Red over City Blue in the Senate and the electoral college is thus replicated within the House of Representatives. Flying over the U.S. in the Space Shuttle at night, the lights you would see match the relatively tiny blue areas that voted for Gore and Kerry -- because that's where the people live! Yet without some form of proportional representation, America, Iraq, and the entire world will continue to suffer from a U.S. federal government that neither reflects nor respects the wishes of We the People.

I had to read the post from "A Guy" three times before I finally concluded he is serious. With that in mind:

1. Shopping for friendly judges to overturn the will of the people as expressed through their votes is precisely what the so-called republicans did in 2000;

2. Muzzling free speech by confining it in small caged "zones" that are far removed from the "public square" is exactly what the neo-fascists have done since 2000;

3. College campuses are not "public squares" per se, nor do you have a constitutional right to speak at an on-campus lecture or graduation ceremony;

4. Shouting down others in the public square is a tactic that is zealously embraced by right-wingers, most notably gun "enthusiasts" in the wake of Columbine; and

5. The separation of church and state is set forth in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the so-called "Free Exercise" and "Establishment" clauses.

It was interesting to learn that the deluded "homelanders" who believe they are the real America are angry, though I really can't imagine why. Poll after poll after poll shows they are a minority, often a very small minority; yet they win election after election thanks to a deeply flawed federal system. They win when they get the most votes; and they win when they don't get the most votes. I should think they'd be thankful rather than angry.

1. The so-called republicans, who profess to believe deeply in state's rights, ran to federal court when they didn't like the rulings of the Florida state courts (which had been asked to step in when Katherine Harris essentially abdicated her duties as secretary of state). The five republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court -- to their everlasting shame and infamy -- stopped the vote counting and decided the presidency at the request of Bush-Cheney.

2. There really isn't very much more that religion can do to influence government without resulting in an unseemly entanglement and unconstitutional establishment. Especially in today's pluralistic society, which includes beliefs beyond Judeo-Christianity, and in which ideas like "God" and "prayer" and the 10 Commandments are NOT unanimously shared. So with that in mind, please answer RKent's question: tell us what exactly is your point?

There is no misunderstanding here concerning the electoral college, which takes power away from the large states (which happen to be mostly blue), and grants it to the small states (which happen to be mostly red). A red vote in Wyoming carries four times the per capita electoral weight of a blue vote in California. A red vote in North Dakota and a red vote in South Dakota together carry three times the weight of two blue votes in California. 16 red states west of the Mississippi combined have fewer people than California, yet command 81 electoral votes versus California's 54. Al Gore got more votes than Bush Jr. in 2000, but lost the electoral college, because he won the big urban states, rather than the small rural states. These are facts. You can look them up. (Or else go back and read Andrew O'Hehir's review.)

Sad to say, but on election night, we will most likely witness yet another "surprise" GOP victory in (rural) district after (rural) district, in (red) state after (red) state; and once again we will have a federal government that neither reflects nor respects the wishes of the majority of the American people. (Look out, Iran!)