This issue should raise the MUCH bigger issue of Congress exempting itself from every law it passes - not just insider trading laws. Congress should be subject to the laws it imposes on the rest of America!

YES!!! With John Nolte having posted his #25 through #2 selections, I can guess what his #1 selection will be. And I could not agree more with him!

John's #1 non-sitcom will be The Rockford Files. A true classic show that stands the test of time. Outstanding choice, John!!

Peter Falk gave me many hours of wonderful entertainment. May he rest in peace.

With that said, I was very, very disappointed with John Nolte and Big Hollywood for not posting one column about James Arness when he passed away on June 3rd this year. James Arness and Marshall Matt Dillon were every bit as big a TV star as Lt. Columbo. Again, very disappointing, Big Hollywood!

I agree with you, PattyAnn. I was similarly left puzzled when Nolte's post ended with "If you". Like you wrote, "If you" what?

John, I thought for sure you would put the Universal Studios' Monster Collection at the top of the list!! Gee, I cannot even begin to count how many memorable moments these movies have provided me over the years. These are true classics which will still be screened and talked about in 100 years!

Wonder what Leo Grin thinks of your list, John? I'd love to read Leo's thoughts on your Top 25 Greatest Halloween Films.

Robert Duvall's personal favorite in his long acting career is "Lonesome Dove" - considers it his finest piece of work. As you wrote, ThatHowardGuy, it was a great mini-series!! In addition to his acting role, Duvall was involved in financing and producing the "Lonesome Dove" series. He was instrumental in steering that series to the small screen.

mvymvy, are you Jason Roe? If so, at least have the courtesy to say so. Also, your snide comment about Tara Ross and her "20 minutes of fame"? Consider this opinion piece your own "20 seconds of fame"!

mvymvy and Jason (you may be one and the same), do you really believe those voters not residing in the Battleground States are totally ignored by the Presidential candidates? Just because a Presidential candidate does not visit my state as often as one of the battlegrounds and does not air as many TV commercials, does not mean my interests nor my fellow state citizens' interests are being ignored by that candidate.

On the other hand, under National Popular Vote legislation, Presidential campaign WILL focus primarily on the large urban centers, to the detriment of the rest of the country. Candidates will focus on garnering the majority of votes in the major metropolitan centers, similar to what is done in state elections. And, living here in Chicago, I can attest to the fact that Chicago and other large urban centers are rife with voter fraud and other political antics.

Jason Cabel Roe, why do we need the National Popular Vote legislation to preserve the Electoral College? On its face, that is a silly argument. You yourself concede in your first paragraph that the purpose behind such legislation is to "reform" the Electoral College. That is, you want it changed.

Moving on, I, too, can perform Electoral College math. The eleven most populous states in the country comprise 271 electoral votes. Therefore, under the National Popular Vote legislation, these eleven states could elect the President, rendering the remaining 39 states "irrelevant", to use your terminology. Further, those 39 states represent 78% of the states, which is greater than the two-thirds of Americans you say are irrelevant since they live in "fly over" country.

Also, you fail to address the argument that the "battle ground" states change over time. That is, Ohio and Florida may be hotly contested "battleground" states currently but that has not always been the case. Nor need it be the case in the future. Over time, various states have been battle grounds. I remember back in the 1980s that California voted consistently Republican. Perhaps even more surprisingly, prior to 1980, Texas was a deep-blue Democrat voting state.

Lastly, Jason, you never address my fundamental issue with such legislation. Your legislation proposes one national presidential election and does away with the current state-by-state presidential election. That is EXACTLY what the founding fathers sought to prevent through the creation of the Electoral College!

P.S. IF you are so hell-bent on "reforming" the Electoral College, at least have the integrity to change it via a Constitutional amendment - not through the current back-door process of state legislatures. Most readers here at Big Government realize their state legislators oftentimes do NOT follow their constituents' interests. This is an excellent example!

As a resident of the city of Chicago, I heartily applaud Cedra Crenshaw!! I only wish I lived her in district so I could vote for her. The Chicago political machine is very powerful and oppressive. Example 1: Chicago has elected a Democrat for mayor in every election since 1931!!! That's almost 80 years, rivaling the length of time the Soviets/USSR were in power!