20. I don't see the need for that: not how it has historically been done & few states are as vast & diverse as the whole country. But not a terrible idea for, say, California if the districts were regularly re-weighted by pop like the EC.https://twitter.com/jonathanchait/status/1124654444715626497 …
-
Show this thread
-
21. Again, bear in mind - as noted in my column - that in practical effect, the Electoral College in nearly every case goes to the winner of popular *majorities*; it comes into play mainly where neither candidate gets one.https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/04/what-the-electoral-college-saves-us-from/ …
6 replies 26 retweets 123 likesShow this thread -
22. You: but if we eliminated winner-take-all states, what might the candidate field look like? Me: Let's consider a real-world example:pic.twitter.com/Eoc8YPFLAS
2 replies 12 retweets 83 likesShow this thread -
23. As for Trump's tax returns: the norm of candidates releasing their taxes is a valuable one, & both Trump & Romney did themselves political damage by delaying/flouting it. But it's not a job requirement. Until 1916, no presidential candidate even paid income taxes.
74 replies 29 retweets 157 likesShow this thread -
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted
24. I'll circle back another day to the Electoral College's historical roots, which tend to be oversimplified by the progressive narrative. This, from a liberal historian, is a useful partial corrective https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html … https://twitter.com/goldietaylor/status/1124740681858203649 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
This Tweet is unavailable.8 replies 23 retweets 131 likesShow this thread -
25. My chief historical argument is that we've had the Electoral College in its current form since 1804. What other country's system for popular sovereignty has lasted that long? The world's longest continuous constitutional system is nothing to discard lightly.
37 replies 35 retweets 206 likesShow this thread -
Dan McLaughlin Retweeted Dan McLaughlin
26. Also the Solid South from 1880 to 1944 is an important part of the history. I dealt in this thread with the example of 1888, when the Electoral College prevented the lockstep Jim Crow South from re-electing Grover Cleveland.https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/1114267402513072128 …
Dan McLaughlin added,
Dan McLaughlinVerified account @baseballcrankAnother example I didn't have room for: 1888. The ex-Confederate states (not very ex, in 1888) voted 61-37 for Cleveland. Rest of the country went 50-46 for Harrison. Cleveland won only 1 state (CT) that wasn't a slave state in 1860. Cleveland won pop. vote by 0.83% & lost.Show this thread3 replies 16 retweets 103 likesShow this thread -
27. Of course, the real scandal of the Solid South's role in Congress and presidential elections in those years is that Congress never enforced Section 2 of the 14th Amendment against them. But that's another day's story.
2 replies 10 retweets 80 likesShow this thread -
28. All of that said, while the Electoral College resolves popular vote pluralities, we do face a realistic possibility in 2020 of facing the Electoral College's real weakness: a tie decided by the House. Which would likely go to Trump, depending how the 2020 House races go.pic.twitter.com/Pjr3Rqbm7g
21 replies 13 retweets 94 likesShow this thread -
This Tweet is unavailable.
No, Senate picks VP. House votes by state caucuses. As of today, GOP still has majority of those. But it's the newly elected House that votes.
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.