By now you've read Part I in our explanation of how a Romney/Kasich ticket could disrupt an electoral majority in November, preventing either Trump or Hillary from being elected and moving on to the "run-off" in the House of Representatives. By way of reminder, the 12th Amendment describes what this process entails for selecting who will be President:

...if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

The second feat of winning the Presidential election in the House of Representatives is also a challenging, unpredictable feat for a Romney/Kasich team, assuming feat #1 is successful—let's now break down the math on what winning in the House could look like:

The House is currently controlled by the Republicans, with 246 seats to the 188 of Democrats (434 total). Let's just assume, worst case, that every sitting Democrat will vote for Hillary. This would mean that the Romney/Kasich ticket would need to convince 218 of the total 246 Republican Representatives to abandon the idea of Donald Trump leading their Grand Old Party and aligning with an independent or new political party (218/434=50.2%)—but that is only if EVERY member of the House is present for the vote. The 12th Amendment is clear that only two-thirds of members must be present for a 'quorum' to exist. This is where Romney's alliance with Speaker Paul Ryan becomes critical, because Speaker Ryan ultimately wields the power to decide when a vote is taken. 
Conceivably, in addition to being the head Romney/Kasich cheerleader and promoting the idea of an independent vote among House members, Speaker Ryan can time the vote to occur when conditions are optimal for a Romney victory. BEST CASE scenario, this would occur when exactly 144 Democrats (or Trump-voting Republicans) are absent (290/434 = 66.8% = Quorom!) Now, Romney needs only 146 votes out of the 290 present to achieve a majority among the Quorom. That's only 59% of the Republican House members and only 33% of The total House. Probably not feasible for a wild card third party "no-name" independent who House members don't know and/or trust—probably not even feasible for John Kasich himself, who by his own accounts was relatively unknown prior to this race. But for Mitt Romney, two-time presidential contender, former Massachusetts Governor and Republican party veteran, to be chosen over Trump by 59% of House Republicans, we think is well within the realm of possibility—especially given the fact that to date Trump has only received an endorsement from a whopping 11 current members of the House.  (For reference, by the end of the 2012 primaries Mitt Romney had received endorsement of 85 sitting members of the House).

Now, here's where the process gets stickier—Vice-President selection. The 12th Amendment describes this process as well:

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

That's right—only the top TWO go into the Vice Presidential run-off in the Senate. Which means that in a Romney/Kasich scenario, chances are Kasich doesn't make it to the final election in the Senate-- they will end up choosing between Hillary's running mate and Trump's. And since the Senate is currently Controlled by Democrats, we can assume that Hillary's running mate would inevitably end up VP in this scenario. So, yes, at the end of this whole scenario we could likely end up with a Republican/Independent President and a Democratic Vice President—something that hasn't happened since 1865 with Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson. But this would probably do our Country some good anyway, to see a Republican/Independent President and a Democrat VP cooperate. Congress can't seem to figure that out themselves.

A Romney/Kasich duo has what it takes to pose a plausible (even if it's a long shot) 3rd party run for the White House—not necessarily because of their combined synergy, but because each one brings a specific, calculated key to the equation. Kasich doesn't have the clout among House Republicans to potentially swing a majority vote against the 'party nominee' like Romney does, yet Romney can't get to the final run-off without the critical help of Kasich to take Ohio's 18 electoral votes. So, America needs John Kasich to agree to do the most American thing possible: sacrifice his own interests to preserve the future of the Nation. John Kasich is the Bing Bong to Mitt Romney's Joy (Inside Out spoiler alert!)—Together they get the wagon going fast enough, and just in time Kasich must jump out and let Mitt ride it all the way to the top.


 (C) Disney•Pixar. All Rights Reserved.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. (emphasis added)    

 We're talking about electoral college votes here, not popular vote.  In other words, if no one candidate receives a majority of electoral college votes (which is 270) on November 8th, then the top THREE electoral candidates go into what is essentially a run-off in the House of Representatives.  What this means is that a 3rd party candidate doesn't need to WIN the general election--that candidate simply needs to disrupt the general election enough to prevent a majority of electoral votes for the other two candidates.  Let's divide this into two separate ideas: First is disrupting the electoral college majority, and second is going on and winning a majority vote in the House of Representatives.  This post will focus on the first point, and we'll follow up with another post on the second.

In order to accomplish the first feat of preventing a majority of electoral votes a dark horse, third party candidate would need to be a strong enough candidate, with a suitable Vice Presidential candidate, to win enough states' electoral college votes to prevent either Trump or Hillary from obtaining 270 electoral votes.  As it is, current polling projections expect it to be a close race in November.  That means that a 3rd party needs only win roughly 30 electoral votes--and they need to pull states almost equally away from Trump and Hillary. That doesn't mean it will be easy-- the last time a 3rd party took more than 30 electoral votes was George Wallace with the American Independent Party in 1968.  Who is the strongest, best-suited presidential duo to accomplish this?  Mitt Romney and John Kasich, President and Vice President.

Mathematically, this is quite doable for a Romney/Kasich ticket.   Obviously, there are thousands of mathematically possible combinations that lead to a disrupted electoral college—we will simply present one of the more plausible cases:  During the primary season Kasich proved that he had overwhelming support in Ohio despite being a long-shot candidate.  He would help the Romney/Kasich ticket take battleground Ohio, which alone is 18 electoral votes.  Ohio went for Obama in 2012, so let's assume those are votes lost for the Democratic ticket.  It is also safe to assume Romney/Kasich would easily win Utah, Idaho, and probably Wyoming based on the overwhelming Republican, Latter-Day Saint population paired with Trump's abysmal performance in those states in the Primaries-- that's an additional 13 electoral votes.  Already at 31 votes, Romney/Kasich ticket is within the realm of disrupting an electoral college majority.  Other viable states for winning a plurality of votes based on Primary outcomes are District of Columbia (3), Kansas (6), Oklahoma (7), Iowa (6), and possibly even Texas (a whopping 38). And let's not forget that Maine and Nebraska split electoral college votes (i.e. not winner-takes-all).  They may pick up a small handful of votes from those states too. Romney/Kasich should have an easier time drawing red states away from Trump; so as long as Florida (29) and a couple other swing states don't ALL swing Democrat, that should do it.

Of course, there is the complication of vote-splitting, which is hard to predict—but so is the appeal of strong, sane, and rational 3rd party candidates when both major party candidates are so disliked. We know that many right-leaning states would would go 3rd party given the chance. The real question is whether some of the left-leaners are really that Ready for Hillary. Could more blue and swing states be won-over than red states compromised by a split? A Romney/Kasich duo, loosed from the shackles of the GOP, would be evaluated based on their own merits, principles, and policies rather than simply their association with the Republican Party at large and its often unpopular reputation—becoming increasingly more palatable to even the bluest of states as we draw nearer to November.  Would a strong, viable 3rd party ticket like Romney/Kasich embolden Bernie Sanders to make a run himself and further dilute the electoral votes?

There remains a lot of uncertainty about this approach, but you can bet that it is being discussed and calculated.  Think about it—Why has Mitt Romney not endorsed any candidate this election cycle?  Why did Kasich unexpectedly drop out of the primaries after vowing to continue until the Republican Convention?  Why is Speaker of the House Paul Ryan so reluctant to support Trump?  Why are so many high-profile Republicans, including past Presidents, not attending the Republican Convention?  The foundation is being laid for the emergence of a new party, and ultimately the demise of the GOP as we know it.  And it's not enough for a new party to simply emerge and draw popular votes (see: Independant (Ross Perot) in 1992, Green Party in 2000, etc.).  The new party (or reformed Republican party) must have enough clout among the prevailing Republican voters to draw a substantial number of electoral votes AND a significant majority of Republican House members with it.  More to come on that topic in Part II...

Back in 2014 a study was published, titled: Diet Drink Consumption and the Risk of Cardiovascular Events.  A copy of the study can be found here.  It's nothing daunting--a mere 6 pages long.   Though once published, it's pretty clear that the media didn't bother spending any time reading, let alone analyzing the study.  Instead, they likely skipped to the last paragraph and read the following:

"In conclusion, this study suggests an association between consumption of two or more diet drinks per day and adverse CVD (Cardiovascular Disease) events, as well as increased mortality."

That was enough to produce headlines like these:

Diet Drinks Raise Heart Concern in Postmenopausal Women
Diet Drinks Linked With Heart Disease, Death
The End of Diet Soda? Huge Study Links Aspartame to These Major Health Problems
Daily Soda Intake Increases Heart Attack Risk

It's worth noting that for the 3rd link above, the study makes no mention of what type of artificial sweetener was in the 'diet drinks' consumed, whether Aspartame or otherwise.  That last link is particularly amusing, since this study was strictly among postmenopausal women and yet this is posted on Men's Fitness. Well, let's take a minute and dig into the science behind and the findings of this study, shall we?

The method of the study was, very briefly, to round up nearly 60,000 women ages 50-79 who did not have pre-existing cardiovascular disease (e.g. coronary heart disease, heart failure, myocardial infarction, etc.) and have them submit a self-reporting questionnaire annually relating to their diet soda consumption.  This was continued for several years, and the resulting data was broken down into four categories of diet soda consumption: 0-3 per month, 1-4 per week, 5-7 per week, and >2 per day.  Researchers looked at all kinds of outcomes of these women over those years, primarily focused on the prevalence of 'cardiovascular events' (i.e. the onset of heart failure) and mortality.  Before we analyze the data presented by the study, let's first identify a few problems with how the study was structured:

1) self-reported studies are notoriously unreliable and inaccurate.

2) The grouping of the diet soda consumption groups is odd.  The questionnaire had 9 consumption groupings, yet the study reports on 4 groups--were some groups combined? or ignored?  By creating a "0-3 per month" group, researchers are assuming and asserting that consuming up to 3 diet sodas a month is negligible and equivalent to never consuming diet soda.  Also, the first three groups pretty well cover the full spectrum of consumption possibilities from 0 times a month all the way through 7 times a week (i.e. one a day).  Why, then, is there such a large gap between the consumption of group 3 and 4 up to "2 or more per day"?  What about all the people who consume 7-14 per week?  The reduction in groups from the original 9 down to the 4 reported-on gives license to manipulate the output data to artificially inflate the results you're interested in.  It appears that this highest consumption group was intentionally biased away from the remaining groups to help stratify the data and produce more stark results.

3) The annual questionnaire asked participants to self-report on consumption activities (from memory) for the most recent 3 months.  What about the other 9 months of the year?

Now, as far as the data and conclusions are concerned: yes-- the "2+ a day" group did show higher rates of both CVD and mortality.  But here are some other equally valid conclusions that could be made using the very same flawed dataset:

1) Consuming 1-7 diet sodas per week reduces mortality up to 20%.
2) Consuming 1-7 diet sodas per week reduces cardiac death by 20%.
  
There you have it-- MODERATE DIET SODA CONSUMPTION SAVES LIVES.  Why didn't we see these in the headlines?

Another glaring issue with this study is the authors own observation of the following:

"There was increased prevalence of diabetes and hypertension in the women who consumed the most diet drinks, and they had a higher BMI (Body Mass Index), a greater proportion of smokers and higher calibrated energy intake."

It seems pretty scientifically irresponsible to suggest an association of CVD events and mortality with the high consumption of soda when that same consumption group has noticeably higher rates of smoking, obesity, calorie consumption, etc.  Perhaps a more appropriate conclusion for this study would have been:

Women with higher BMI and higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and smoking are associated with adverse CVD events as well as increased mortality.  Oh, and they tend to consume more diet soda, too (maybe because they are trying to manage their weight?).

This is a prime example of what is most likely a spurious relationship:  Where higher BMI, diabetes, hypertension, smoking is present, both increased mortality and increased diet soda consumption are observed: soda consumption is the lurking variable.  To the author's credit, he does state the need for further studies to confirm or disprove the link between diet soda consumption and CVD events or death and also to evaluate whether there is a causal relationship between diet soda consumption and CVD risk.  In other words, this study of over 60,000 women didn't really prove anything and, as the favorite saying goes, correlation does not imply causation.  But the media didn't bother to report "Diet Soda Consumption: More Studies Needed."

Just for kicks, if we just want to look at data correlations within the study, here's a few more "conclusions" (for entertainment purposes):

1) Lower diet soda consumption correlates with higher college graduate rates (headline: Diet Soda Linked To College Dropouts!)
2) Diet soda consumption rates correlate with higher income (headline: Drink Diet Soda, Earn More Money!)
3) Diet soda consumption rates correlate with lower alcohol consumption (headline: Drinking Diet Soda Helps Quitting Alcohol)

This study is yet another example of borderline junk science getting gobbled up by the media and converted into unsubstantiated headlines that people base their life decisions around.

Back in 2010 the FDA sent a warning letter to Diamond Foods Inc. regarding their walnuts.  Here's the original copy.  Much of the internet, especially the 'healthy eating' community, proceeded to lose its collective mind with statements like:

FDA Ignores the Science
Walnuts are DRUGS! FDA Makes Bizarre Claim
FDA Says Walnuts are Illegal Drugs

You get the idea.  First of all, something the general public may not realize is that a warning letter from the FDA is nothing novel.  It happens all the time—Diamond Foods isn't special.  The FDA publishes all their warning letters on their website, and by the looks of it they issued approximately 600+ letters just in 2015.

Before we dive into the perfectly rational and justified reasoning by the FDA, let's explore a hypothetical:  Suppose you lived in the early 20th century and a reputable pharmaceutical company came to town selling a brand new elixir that would treat a strep throat infection.  There's only one problem—the elixir comprises an 'active ingredient' drug mixed and diluted with a solvent, which is poisonous.  By the time anyone realizes the true nature of this new drug, over 100 people are dead from ingesting it.  The sad reality is that this is no hypothetical—this is the true story of Harold Watkins and his deadly Sulfanilamide elixir of 1937.   Watkins used a substance proven to help treat a streptococcus infection, Sulfanilamide, diluted it with diethylene glycol, and topped it off with some raspberry flavor to create his new drug product.  Watkins, despite being the head pharmacist and chemist of then S.E. Massengill Company, was unaware that diethylene glycol is poisonous.  No animal or human testing was done with the new mixture before they set out marketing the new drug.  Tragedy ensued.  This event was a catalyst for the organization of the FDA as we know it today.

What does this have to do with walnuts?  A key role of the FDA is to prevent a person or company selling a drug (or device) from either A) making unsubstantiated marketing claims about the safety or efficacy of the drug (or device), or B) making unsubstantiated claims about the indications of use of the drug (or device) to treat one or more particular disease states.  On their website, Diamond Foods was in violation of both of these relating to the assertion that their walnuts contain Omega-3 fatty acids.  One example is the claim that Diamond foods made:

"Studies indicate that the omega-3 fatty acids found in walnuts may help lower cholesterol; protect against heart disease, stroke and some cancers; ease arthritis and other inflammatory diseases; and even fight depression and other mental illnesses."

Here Diamond Foods is making the claim that their walnuts can be used to help treat or prevent heart disease, stroke, cancer, arthritis, depression, and other mental illness—this is called an indication for use.  So let's be clear—if you are selling a substance which is ingested which you claim can be used to treat or prevent various diseases or illnesses, no matter what that substance may be (i.e. walnuts), you are making that substance a de facto drug.  In this case, it was not the FDA that made the claim that walnuts were drugs, it was Diamond Foods, Inc.

Diamond Foods also got dinged for making claims about the efficacy of their product by stating:

"[T]here's good evidence that omega-3s can increase HDL (good cholesterol), further reducing the risk of stroke and heart disease."

Here they are not only indicating that their product can treat a disease state, but specifically that their product would reduce the risk of stroke.  This is a description of the efficacy of their product to reduce the occurrence of a disease state.  Once again, Diamond Foods is de facto claiming that their walnuts are a drug.

Now, one primary complaint by the nay-sayers is this: "But lots of studies show that Omega-3s have been proven to help with those things!"  This is largely true.  But where are the studies that show that Diamond Food walnuts specifically contain those Omega-3's?  How do we know that there isn't another substance in walnuts that confound the positive effects of the Omega-3's?  Where are the randomized clinical trials showing that by ingesting more Diamond Food walnuts than a control population leads to lower occurrence rates or better outcomes of those disease states listed above?  For all we know, and for all the FDA knows, these studies don't exist.  This is why Diamond Foods got in trouble.

It is an unfair logical leap for Diamond Foods to assert that, since Omega-3's help treat those diseases and their walnuts presumably contain Omega-3's, therefore their walnuts must help treat those diseases.  Harold Watkins made a similar logical leap with disastrous consequences.  Obtaining approval from the FDA to market a new 'drug' or device doesn't always require a big randomized human trial, either.  If there exists a predicate approved product (i.e. one that basically already does the same thing) then all that remains is to provide sufficient bench testing data and written justification to show the equivalency of the two products in safety and efficacy, and the newer product may be approved.  This is accomplished through a 510(k) filing.  Diamond Foods may have been able to obtain approval for these types of claims through this relatively straight-forward avenue.

So what conclusions can we draw from all this?

1) The FDA doesn't decide what is and is not a drug—people and companies do by making "drug-like" claims about their products.  The FDA simply ensures that those claims are backed up by real science.

2) The FDA is not ignoring the science—if anything, Diamond Foods is ignoring the need for science.  The FDA is demanding an overwhelming burden of proof (how scientific of them!).  The FDA does this to keep us American's safe from all the snake oil salesman out there in the world.  In fact, the FDA is one of the most restrictive and conservative regulatory bodies in the world.  This is a key reason why most drug and medical-device makers do their clinical trials outside the US—it's typically easier and faster to obtain approval (and, therefore, less expensive).  As someone who works in an industry regulated by the FDA, this can be very frustrating.  As a consumer, I am grateful I can go to a local drug store and pick up some NyQuil for my colds, or Sudafed for my congestion, or Claritin for my allergies, and know that those products will be both safe and effective.

It seems that a hunting enthusiast, in his zeal to share the joys of his favorite pastime, didn't not take appropriate time to proofread his post.  Let's indulge for a minute-- which would you choose:

1) never hunting again
2) dating supermodels the rest of your life

This is an example of what I would like to call a false False Dilemma. A true False Dilemma is a logical fallacy in which option are unnecessarily limited, or options are erroneously assumed to be mutually exclusive. In a typical "would you rather" type question, the hypothetical scenario assumes the limitation and mutual exclusion to force the dilemma, and for humor's sake, we turn a blind eye to the logically fallacious nature of the would-be False Dilemma. That appears to be what's going on here, but look closer; by the way it is written, option 1 does not preclude dating supermodels, and option 2 does not preclude hunting—in fact it implicitly requires it, since the converse of option 1 would be to hunt at least once in your life. In other words, let's boil it down to a simpler form of the hypothetical—which would you choose:

1) no hunting, no supermodels
2) hunting + supermodels

The humor aspect only kicks in if the two options are either equally desirable or undesirable, presenting a form of false dilemma.  So, in reality it is a false False Dilemma.  The only instance in which this actually poses any type of dilemma, true or false, is if you are a hunting enthusiast who has a pronounced distain for supermodels—in which case this would be a real Sophie's Choice. Perhaps the author meant this:

"If you had to choose between hunting and dating supermodels the rest of your life...would you hunt with a bow or gun?"

But we wouldn't want to give the false impression of a choice between dating supermodels and hunting supermodels.  So, how about this:

"If you had to choose between two options; hunting, and dating supermodels the rest of your life...would you hunt with a bow or a gun?"

problem solved; semi-colon saves the day!  Except for that lingering false dilemma, of course.  Even a supermodel-dating hunter can see that there are many, many alternative choices than either hunting or dating supermodels-- these options are obviously not two mutually exclusive and exhaustive hypotheses.  False dilemmas are everywhere, and pose a serious flaw in logical reasoning and argument---we'll discuss that concept more in the future.

Donald Trump is a professional salesman, and he is actively doing his absolute best to sell to the American public that he is the undisputed front-runner, the party favorite, the populist leader of the Republican party, and therefore deserves its uncontested support.  When headlines appear that show that Trump wins X Primary with X% votes, for example, it's easy to feel the tug of his compelling sales pitch.  So how much of the population is truly supporting Donald Trump through the nomination process?  I thought we should boil the numbers down to evaluate:

In any given contest, there is a percentage of voters which cast their vote for Trump.  The vote percentage shown (e.g. 45.9% in Nevada Caucus) is the percentage of votes for Trump out of the total votes cast during the Republican Primary or Caucus.  But, it is critical to keep in mind that the voters participating in each Primary or Caucus contest are only a subset of registered Republicans for that particular state*; and registered Republicans are only a subset of all of the Voting-Eligible Population within a given state; and Voting-Eligible Population is only a subset of the Voting Age Population of a given state.  Let's take for example Nevada-- a state that Trump won early on by a surprisingly large margin.  Below is a nested circle diagram which illustrates the point-- the area of each circle represents the subsets of population described above.  Trump's 45.9% victory, when viewed in terms of the total Voting Age Population of Nevada, takes on an entirely new, diminutive context:


Here is a link to a spreadsheet of data and calculations from all of the states which have already held their primary or caucus contests in 2016 (as of 3/28), along with the appropriate statistics of current state population, registered Republican voters, Voting-Eligible Population estimates and Voting-Age Population estimates, and finally the number of Primary/Caucus votes cast in favor of Donald Trump.  From this data we can contrast the difference between A) the % of votes in favor of Trump within the Republican contest, and B) the % of Voting-Eligible Population (from all parties) voting for Trump.

State	% Trump Votes Among Rep. Voters	% of VEP for Trump
Iowa	24.3%	2.0%
New Hampshire	34.9%	9.7%
South Carolina	32.2%	6.5%
Nevada	45.9%	1.8%
Alabama	43.4%	10.3%
Alaska	33.5%	1.4%
Arkansas	32.4%	6.2%
Georgia	38.7%	7.3%
Massachusetts	48.8%	6.3%
Minnesota	36.5%	1.0%
Oklahoma	28.3%	4.7%
Tennessee	38.9%	6.8%
Texas	27.7%	4.4%
Vermont	32.3%	4.0%
Virginia	34.7%	5.9%
Kansas	23.3%	0.8%
Kentucky	35.9%	2.5%
Louisiana	41.4%	3.7%
Maine	32.5%	0.6%
Hawaii	42.4%	0.6%
Idaho	28.1%	5.4%
Michigan	36.6%	6.5%
Mississippi	47.5%	8.8%
District of Columbia	13.8%	0.1%
Florida	45.8%	7.5%
Illinois	41.1%	6.3%
Missouri	40.9%	8.5%
North Carolina	40.2%	6.3%
Ohio	37.4%	8.3%
Arizona	47.1%	5.4%
Utah	14.0%	1.3%
AVERAGE	35.5%	4.9%

What can we take away from the data shown above and from the source data in the spreadsheet?  For one thing, Primary voter turnout rates are still embarrassingly low at appx. 20% of all those who are eligible to vote.  The result of this is that in several states where Trump produced a surprisingly strong win (e.g. Nevada, Hawaii, etc.), this is simply because of abysmally low Republican voter turnout.  Yes, Trump won Hawaii with 42.4% of votes, but among a state with a population over 1 million, Trump only mustered a little over 5,600 votes-- but that was enough to clinch an additional 11 delegates.  Across all 32 contests so far, Trump is garnering less than 5% of votes from all those who would be eligible to vote.  Let me put that another way:  The percentage of voters choosing Trump for President is currently less than the percentage of convicted felons in America.  Is that the least bit distressing for you?  For someone with support from such a small fraction of the population to be on the cusp of being officially nominated for election as President of the United States?

So yes, Donald Trump is currently doing better than other candidates-- but doing better than others doesn't mean you're doing well.  This is one reason why, despite his protestations, a contested Convention may not only be fair but highly appropriate.  Why is Republican voter turnout so low?  What could we do as a Nation to fix this voting system?  Topics for future posts, I confess.  Just keep in mind, the next time you hear vote percentages for a Primary win, that in reality there's much more (or, much less) than meets the eyes behind those numbers.

*Several states do not allow for declaring political party affiliation when registering to vote.