The electoral college is for small states

The electoral college is for small states
Click to expand...
The electoral college is for weak political parties, and their less popular candidates.

It's already benefited the GOP twice since the Clinton administration.
 
sear said:
The electoral college is for weak political parties, and their less popular candidates.

It's already benefited the GOP twice since the Clinton administration.
Click to expand...

The Constitutional system of elections has never benefited Democrats, which is one thing I like about it:

1800: Adams lost, regardless, but the Federalist Congress was able to create a rift between Jefferson and Burr when they voted Jefferson president.
1824: This election spawned the Democratic Party when Congress voted John Quincy Adams president due to his being the better man. Fuck Andrew Jackson!
1876: This one doesn't really count, but the Reconstruction governments, most notably FL, handed the election to Republicans. It helps when the Dems are a conquered foe facing military occupation.
1888: Getting a Democratic President less than 20 years after the Dems lost the Civil War was an outrage. Cleveland won the popular vote in his re-election bid, but Harrison won the EV.
2000: It took a while of consistent elections (not counting 1960), but Republicans managed to grab another electoral victory via FL. Dems tried to get the FL courts to change the outcome, but the SCOTUS put a stop to that.
2016: A rather surprising case, because this election was not tight in the electoral vote, despite Douchebag Donald losing the popular vote.
 
#6

Splendid.

But does it not give you pause that your ideology is so unpopular that it has resulted in the loser of the vote winning the election (if I read your #6 correctly) half a dozen times?

You can't win on merit, so you settle for a Constitutional anachronism instead?
 
sear said:
#6

Splendid.

But does it not give you pause that your ideology is so unpopular that it has resulted in the loser of the vote winning the election (if I read your #6 correctly) half a dozen times?

You can't win on merit, so you settle for a Constitutional anachronism instead?
Click to expand...

Not at all, because, 1824 alone was worth it. Keeping Andrew Jackson out, even if it was a mere delay, was a good thing. Congress delivered him a reminder that he was not fit for the office, and never would be. And through two terms that he did eventually win, he indeed never was.

Also, I was banking on a close electoral race in the hopes that Evan McMullin would steal Utah from Douchebag Donald, and thus send the race to Congress. It was the only way we could have elected a worthy candidate.
 
President elect Trump is fundamentally unqualified for the office.

I'm not so much offering an amateur opinion as repeating an observation made by some of the most qualified humans in the known universe.

I'm old.
I'm on Social Security.
I JUST DON'T CARE!!

If the planet catches fire, and the only life form that survives is spores, I'll hoist a celebratory toast to our dear leader until the flesh drips from my skeleton.

Have a fantastic day.
 
So the OP is suggesting just a few urban areas/states elect the leader and screw the majority of states? I thought the left was crying for "Democracy"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top