The above editorial also argues that it's more important to have a quick result than a result that gives all Americans an equal say.
-
Show this thread
-
"The Electoral College guarantees that candidates who seek the only nationally elected office in America must attempt to appeal to as broad a geographic constituency as possible" -- except as far as several large metropolitan areas are concerned.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Ultimately, the editorial ignores the fundamental fact that a presidential vote from certain states counts more than a presidential vote from other states. It dismisses the argument as anti-Federalist without actually addressing the concern at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Californian: My vote for President doesn't count as much as someone's vote from a rural state. National Review: Yeah, but that's a good thing! And if we have to do a recount, you guys take soooo long.
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jonweisman
California has voted for the winner 27 of the last 33 elections. And its Democratic majority already gets the added weight of the state's 4-5 million Republicans.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @baseballcrank
That stat doesn't speak to the fairness of the system. And for example, the state's 4-5 million Republicans should have their votes count too.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonweisman
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Dan McLaughlin
The key thing the EC does is prevent lopsided majorities in a handful of states from swamping mainstream opinion in the rest of the country. I used some examples like 1860 yesterdayhttps://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1108032041432563712 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
Dan McLaughlinVerified account @baseballcrankIn the long run, of course, it was the Electoral College that enabled a not-overwhelming majority in the North to act collectively to elect Abe Lincoln. Lincoln got 54% of the vote in states he won, 26.3% in Douglas states, but 0.9% in Breckenridge states, 0.7% in Bell states.Show this thread1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
I'm obviously glad Lincoln won, but I'm not sure how one defines mainstream in a way that doesn't include the majority of the popular vote. Under the Electoral College, we've had results to love, and results to love much less. One result doesn't justify the system for eternity.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jonweisman
My broader point was about not just Lincoln but the old Solid South's lopsided margins. You still have to win the pop vote state by state. Trump, for example, won 7 of the 10 largest states, and that made the difference compared to Romney or McCain.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
This still doesn't address the main arguments that the anti-E.C. movement makes: that the importance of a vote changes depending on where you live.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That's inherent in a federal system.
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
"Inherent" is not the same as "good." The NR editorial argues that eliminating the EC will destroy Federalism and in turn the country, without explaining why. It's actually quite easy to see the country, including state and local gov't, continuing just fine without the EC.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.