Husky Coach Ty Willingham had better have his players ready to win.
It is a foregone conclusion that Willingham MUST lead Washington to a winning season and bowl appearance or his time as the Husky coach will be over.
Stacked against Don James 18-year career record of 153-57-2 (72%), a 10-4 bowl game record, and winning 22 consecutive games from 1990 to 1992, Willingham’s mark looks really lame.
Prior to Willingham, the Huskies have won 15 Pac-10 Conference championships, 7 Rose Bowl titles and 2 NCAA national championships. If there is one in thing I have always felt should be changed in America it is the Electoral College System along with the English system of measurement and the law that claims that one need be 21 or older to legally drink alcoholic beverages. However before I go in to reasons why I feel the electoral college system needs to be changed, I will explain for those who are not aware what this system is.
As a footnote to this and being a republican; I can add to this that if the United States had had a system like this in 92 then Clinton might not have won the election because if memory serves us well where he did get 370 electoral votes (100 more then needed) he only got 47% of the popular vote. Which under the system most countries who elect their leaders through popular vote as opposed to those like the UK or Italy who elect their prime ministers through parliamentary elections; Clinton would have had to face that year’s runner-up who was George Bush senior. The electoral college is a system which goes back to the begging when George Washington was elected president which is a system in which every state is granted a certain amount of what is known as “electoral votes”. The bigger the population of the state the more electoral votes it gets; naturally with California being the state with the largest population it also has the most electoral votes. Once we add up the total amount of electoral votes from all 50 states the sum we get is 538; out of which the candidate hoping to be elected president needs to win a figure no less then 270 to be assured the presidency of the United States of America. Elections are held in each state, where people vote in the state they are registered in for the candidate of their choosing; who is on a list of those who are running for president. In these elections; with one being held in each and every state through out the US of A; the candidate who wins the state in question also gets all the electoral votes the state has. In all this it should be made clear that to get all the electoral votes the candidate need not do anymore then win the popular vote of the state in question.
I even see that a system like this might lead some people to feel the need not to vote being that if one considers the matter carefully their vote will make less of a difference then one vote usually does. However if the vote were nationwide then my vote would make a difference (very little) in the population tally though not in the state and since the winner gets all the electoral votes regardless of how wide or narrow his or her margin of victory was then why should I or anybody else bother to vote if he or she hears for instance on his or her radio or TV that 90% of the votes in the state have been counted with the opposing candidate or even his own holding a 20% lead.
It is because of this that I insist in stating how this would not occur if the United States had a system like all other countries of the world that elect their leaders through a nation wide election instead of several local elections. This also being why I claim that George W. Bush might not have lost the popular vote in 2000.
