Interesting POV but the EC is in itself an undemocratic institution as it was created to ensure the "wrong" person was never elevated to office despite winning a democratically held election (one person one vote all persons). When the person who wins the most votes is not allowed to take the office, that is undemocratic by definition imh…
Interesting POV but the EC is in itself an undemocratic institution as it was created to ensure the "wrong" person was never elevated to office despite winning a democratically held election (one person one vote all persons). When the person who wins the most votes is not allowed to take the office, that is undemocratic by definition imho. (But I appreciate hearing your justification for it; I just will never agree. The EC manipulates results deliberately. It may be legal. It isn't democratic.)
I think liberals are overly focused on the state by state nature of the EC that could mean a candidate who doesn't receive a national majority wins the election. A much, much bigger concern is the clunky and easily exploited process associated with counting and certifying electoral votes. That's something Trump tried to exploit in 2020. Here's a related concern. What if the D narrowly wins a sufficient number of states for an electoral majority in 2024 and Trump bribes a few electors to cross over to vote for him so he can win the EC vote for President? That didn't happen in 2000 b/c Bush and Gore were decent moral men who cared about the country. Trump is not decent nor moral and he sure doesn't care about the country.
I am focused on the popular vote electing the winner. So I would support eliminating the EC as it has proven to be easily manipulated by those neither decent nor moral. Twice in 20 years. But then, democracy only works if those working it abide by a social contract. Both parties must do so.
Interesting POV but the EC is in itself an undemocratic institution as it was created to ensure the "wrong" person was never elevated to office despite winning a democratically held election (one person one vote all persons). When the person who wins the most votes is not allowed to take the office, that is undemocratic by definition imho. (But I appreciate hearing your justification for it; I just will never agree. The EC manipulates results deliberately. It may be legal. It isn't democratic.)
I think liberals are overly focused on the state by state nature of the EC that could mean a candidate who doesn't receive a national majority wins the election. A much, much bigger concern is the clunky and easily exploited process associated with counting and certifying electoral votes. That's something Trump tried to exploit in 2020. Here's a related concern. What if the D narrowly wins a sufficient number of states for an electoral majority in 2024 and Trump bribes a few electors to cross over to vote for him so he can win the EC vote for President? That didn't happen in 2000 b/c Bush and Gore were decent moral men who cared about the country. Trump is not decent nor moral and he sure doesn't care about the country.
I am focused on the popular vote electing the winner. So I would support eliminating the EC as it has proven to be easily manipulated by those neither decent nor moral. Twice in 20 years. But then, democracy only works if those working it abide by a social contract. Both parties must do so.