The electoral college is a failure. The Founding Fathers would probably agree (Mega Barf Alert)

Washington Compost ^ | April 8, 2019 | Joshua Spivak

[digger48]

Which would give the Democrat just 15-16% of the total votes

Out of 3116 counties, Hillary won just 478 of them (if I recall my numbers correctly)

[marktwain]

If NPV passes in time, in winning the popular vote, President Trump will win the electoral votes of NY and CA. Then watch the same DUmmies and media shills bitch that the electors should be faithless and cast their votes for the Demagogic Party nominee.

Exactly correct.

I believe there is an excellent chance of President Trump winning the popular vote in 2020.

[Maris Crane]

The Genius Electoral College is working PRECISELY as it is supposed to work.

Those with no IQ cannot understand what that means, but it is the truth.

No MOB rule for the USA.

[Sgt_Schultze]

At the time of the founding, Virginia was the California of its time, nearly twice as populous as the next closest state. Yet many of the founders hailed from Virginia, and still managed to contrive the Electoral College.

[KC Burke]

Another light-weight wanting to sit at the big table.

[a fool in paradise]

Stalinists speak with forked tongue.

[Mr. Blond]

The Founding Fathers would view Universal Suffrage as a failure.

[kvanbrunt2]

The electoral college was designed with two purposes: to separate the branches of government in an attempt to avoid “cabals” and to prevent foreign corruption.>> false premise straw man.

[Republican Wildcat]

This is utterly nonsensical and completely devoid of reality, yet it was written and published in a major newspaper as authoritative. The Founders didn’t intend for it to actually elect a President? The very first President was elected by it and then re-elected. It was quickly amended not long after to prevent constant elections by the House - well within the lifetimes of these same Founders - quite an oddity if it was never meant to elect a President.

[Republican Wildcat]

Right - it was designed to because the President of the United STATES was being elected by those STATES that were separate entities that joined together to form the national in a Union. It’s in the very name, yet they still don’t get it. This guy has no clue, yet I’m sure has plenty of extra letters sitting beside his name so he can make the claim he’s a so-called “expert.”

[Republican Wildcat]

It is precisely what they were saying prior to the election when the polls at certain points in the race showed Trump with clear leads. The talking heads discussed it with the experts saying “Well, he’s doing well in the national popular vote, but his real problem is in the Electoral College, which he is not likely to win even if he wins the popular vote.” Heard this over and over again...and of course the possibility of such an outcome didn’t bother them in the least...it was how the system was set up to work. When the opposite occurred, they flipped like they had never made the previous comments and the EC had to go.

In fact, if you recall, they did the same thing back in 2000 - raising the possibility that Gore could win Florida while Bush wins the national popular vote as some polls were showing Bush with a clear national lead but with it too close to call in Florida. The Founders were brilliant. Then the opposite occurs and it becomes a travesty.

To simplify it, they’re just lying.

[TallahasseeConservative]

I agree with one exception. It was Lincoln who began the downfall of state’s rights. Before the War of Northern Aggression, folks said “The United States are” after the War, it became “The United States is”. Roosevelt surely put his stamp on it, but it began 70 years earlier.

[Nifster]

Who is this twerp???

[Nifster]

You are wrong

[Political Junkie Too]

Anyone who writes a headline like this is just advertising their ignorance.

-PJ

[KC_Conspirator]

It has been a resounding success.

[SunkenCiv]

[SunkenCiv]

• Campaigning for the Popular Vote is much easier & different than campaigning ... [Trump Tweet]... for the Electoral College. It’s like training for the 100 yard dash vs. a marathon. The brilliance of the Electoral College is that you must go to many States to win. With the Popular Vote, you go to.... ....just the large States - the Cities would end up running the Country. Smaller States & the entire Midwest would end up losing all power - & we can’t let that happen. I used to like the idea of the Popular Vote, but now realize the Electoral College is far better for the U.S.A.

[Vlad The Inhaler]

The Founders would double down on the Electoral College concept if they saw America today.

• There are probably 40 to 50 million illegals in the USA

• 43 states have a lower population than just Los Angeles county in California

• Los Angeles County has a larger population than the combined population of the most sparsly populated 15 or 16 states

• There are millions of illegal aliens in just Los Angeles county many of whom vote in US elections

• The state of California and other local and state governments encourage voting by illegal aliens either directly or indirectly with weak laws

• Without the Electoral College the direct vote by a handful of the most populous states would outvote the other 40 or 45 states

[hinckley buzzard]

I won’t pay a dollar to read this dreck, but I assume it eventually gets around to the truth, ie that the electoral college was a vehicle for the states to choose the president. It was a fundamental element of federalism to give the states some control over the executive, just as the original choosing of the Senate gave the states some control over the legislative branch.

It was not expected that the people at large would ever have much to do with the distant and mild mannered central government they anticipated, so there was no real need for the people to have to take a hand in its running.