Five Common Misconceptions About the Electoral College
Defenders of the Electoral College argue that it was created to combat majority tyranny and support federalism, and that it continues to serve those purposes. This stance depends on a profound misunderstanding of the history of the institution.
November 29, 2019
G. Alan Tarr
Board of Governors Professor at Rutgers University-Camden
Two of the nations last three presidents won the presidency in the Electoral College, even though they lost the popular vote nationwide. In 2000, Al Gore outpolled George W. Bush by more than 540,000 votes but lost in the Electoral College, 271266. Sixteen years later, Hillary Clinton tallied almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but lost decisively in the Electoral College, 306232. And, as a recent New York Times poll suggested, the 2020 election could very well again deliver the presidency to the loser of the popular vote.
Despite this, defenders of the Electoral College argue that it was created to combat majority tyranny and support federalism, and that it continues to serve those purposes. For example, Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas, responding to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs recent criticism of the Electoral College, tweeted that we live in a republic, which means 51% of the population doesnt get to boss around the other 49%, and that the Electoral College promotes more equal regional representation and protects the interests of sparsely populated states.
But arguments like these are flawed, misunderstanding the pertinent history. Below, I identify five common mistakes made in arguing for the preservation of the Electoral College.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/five-common-misconceptions-about-electoral-college/602596/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
dalton99a
(81,065 posts)The Electoral College and two-senator-per-state rule
turbinetree
(24,631 posts)it just proves that he doe not not believe in majority rule..................
BigOleDummy
(2,260 posts)This needs to be read as soon as possible and by as many as possible. ESPECIALLY those of us with a leftist political view to counter these asshat repukelicans "arguments". Thank you for posting
turbinetree
(24,631 posts)Midnightwalk
(3,131 posts)Asserting that 51% shouldnt be able to boss around 49% but ignoring that 49% is bossing around 51% is intellectually dishonest.
I think the percentages are worse than that and will get worse. The divide in the country is urban rural not regional.
If the major divide in the country was regional then someone might put together an argument for how a regional system protects minority rights. The senate is set up that way but I dont agree that works well now and maybe never did.
The presidency is a single office so it is inherently winner take all. The electoral college doesnt protect minority rights, it gives us the tyranny of the minority.