agip wrote:
What a Racket! wrote:
Yes, it has worked reasonably well. And pointing out that two of the last three presidents were elected without a majority of the vote is almost incomprehensibly stupid. The EC was specifically set up to allow for the possibility of the POTUS to be elected while losing the popular vote.
If you want to ask a question please preface it with a statement that is not mind-bogglingly stupid.
the point is that the electoral college is a very strange and unique way to elect a supreme leader. No other major country has it. So you have to ask how it's doing now.
the answer is that it put in office Bush2 and Trump, two guys who few serious historians will deny are two of the worst presidents we've ever had. I think, although this is an opinion, Al Gore or HRC would not have wound up on the bottom of the list of good presidents.
The point is that if you are going to have a democracy, then question the ways democracy is hampered in your country. The EC is a deliberate hampering of democracy. Is it working? I'd say no, given the quality of Bush2 and Trump, neither of whom would be president without it.
Democracy worked. the people chose Gore and HRC. Human design - the EC - gave us two disastrous presidencies.
You are so thick-skulled. You're wrong about so many things, it's hard to keep up.
You can't say "they wouldn't be president without the EC", because without the EC, presidents would campaign very differently. Trump may have gone to California, for example.
Everyone knows the rules of the game heading into the game. Stop ignoring that major fact.