The point of the Electoral College was not to make America a 2-party system in which 1 party always wins regardless of the popular vote.
-
-
Replying to @laureneoneal
We can't really be like, "Well, we all knew the rules," when losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College is EXTREMELY rare.
2 replies 4 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @laureneoneal
I feel like we've capitulated to the narrative that the Electoral College is *supposed* to override the popular vote.
3 replies 43 retweets 80 likes -
Replying to @laureneoneal
The narrative feels like "Ah well, we all vote, but of course, if you live in a city, your vote should count for less, it's only fair."
4 replies 60 retweets 100 likes -
Replying to @laureneoneal
Yet in virtually every American election, the Electoral College has reflected the popular vote. That's normal. This is not normal.
4 replies 8 retweets 25 likes -
Replying to @laureneoneal
When Bush beat Gore despite losing the popular vote, the popular vote was the closest in US history, and it was legally contested.
1 reply 6 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @laureneoneal
This one wasn't even close. The Electoral College does not exist to change the results of elections that aren't even close.
1 reply 12 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @laureneoneal
I recognize that's what's happened, and it's legal. But let's not pretend it's normal or that this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
4 replies 6 retweets 26 likes
the Founding Fathers didn't even conceive a system where individual voters chose electors. They expected state leg'es to!
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.