It's always funny when the Electoral College apologists trot out their excuses. The task of assessing such a quagmire of historical ennui I would tend to leave to Alexander Hamilton and his elitist, empiricist, anti-democratic compatriots. They always seem ready to perform waste management.

Meanwhile, the Electoral College makes sense. Of course it does. It's a tradition! Let's take that sense and apply it to other venues.

By Electoral College logic, US Senators and Representatives should be elected only if they win the majority of the counties in their respective states. If they happen to get the majority of votes, that doesn't count.

And state governors should only win their seats if they win the majority of the towns in the state they wish to govern. If they happen to get the majority of votes, that doesn't count.

Heck, on the state level we even have elections for sheriffs and judges that are won based on majority vote. That's obviously wrong using Electoral College logic. Guess we need to break those results into majorities per wards, etc., and who won the most. Boss Tweed would be proud! Democracy at its finest!

Yeah, right.

Funny how the United States presidential election is the only election where the winner is not who gets the most votes. The ghost of Hamilton still haunts us...

The Electoral College (and all state votes go to the local victor) are perversions of democratic processes. Rationalize away all you want, it doesn't make sense.

(thud, thud, thud)

As with all other elections, the person who gets the majority of the vote should be the winner!

As with all other elections, the person who gets the majority of the vote should be the winner!

As with all other elections, the person who gets the majority of the vote should be the winner!

Is there something here you don't understand, bro?

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.