you would think so, but evidently some people don't agree.  From my perspective, coming from a state that has an incredible bias towards one political party, it seems that the system is set up to supress and discourage voters.  I think people that live in the battleground states are probably a lot happier with the system than those that aren't.  

I'd agree with points 1 & 3, but not point 2.

Although, with point 3, I support term limits in the House, and returning the Senate back to the states.

Point 2, that was done on purpose. Originally, the Federal Government was supposed to have very little effect in the daily lives of the US citizens... unfortunately, after reconstruction, and the progressive era, all that changed. As such, the House was directly elected, the Senate was appointed by the States, and the President was indirectly elected (a mix between the two).

The idea was that the House would continously fight for Federal power, while the Senate would fight for State power, and the President acted as an arbiter between the two (as this was where all their political incentives were laid out). These fights were supposed to keep the Federal Government to within the confines of the Constitution.

Obviously, once the States were removed from the process, and Senators were directly elected, the whole system broke, and the incentives were all geared towards Federal power. Directly electing the President would be the last nail in the coffin for the Republic, and the country would essentially become a straight democracy.

So, you want to make senators an appointed position?  Have you looked at the history of the senate before the amendment was passed?  They changed it for a reason.  Divided legislatures would often deadlock and senate seats would be vacant for many years.  The appointed senate was also probably the most partisan group of people ever to be in government as they were acountable to their political party, not the people.  The problem with the senate doesnt come from elections, that isnt what keeps them from focusing on states rights.  The problem with the senate is the political parties.  If anything, elections help them focus more on their state, and history will vouch for me there.

Looking at the presidential election process, i dont see how the electoral college helps anything other than making it cheaper to run for the office.  As it is now, it is pretty much just an election in 9 states, the rest of the country doesnt matter.  Those states benefit from ad spending and having the politcians care about issues important in those states.  It gives those few states more power than rest of the country and for what? How would a direct election be worse?  All it would do is spread the power of electing the president among all the states, not just the 9 battleground states.

It wouldnt make it a democracy either.  It would still be a representative government were the laws are drafted and passed by a few elected officials.  Democracy would put the majority of the people in charge of passing laws, and we arent anywhere close to that.

KFC >>> McDonalds

This should be universal

I'm in Hong Kong. HK McDonald's is awesome (seriously, seaweed salt on the fries - AWESOME). HK KFC is awful - no mash, no gravy.... you get some rice dish, instead.

So, not Universal.

Back West, though, I'd agree.

that people who treat prostitutes with respect can legally hire prostitutes 

You can never be certain of where those prostitutes come from. Prostitution feeds sex trafficking.

Oxymoron?

that's interesting, i though KFC was just chicken and fries, regardless of location. If I ever go to Kong Hong, i will have a McDonalds lol, just to try it.

Do you travel alot then?

A little bit. But I'm working for a year in Hong Kong (HSBC).

And if that's all you thought KFC was, daaaaamn girl. The chicken is awesome, yes... but everybody knows it's the awesome sides that makes it kick ass.