LogFAQs > #935029100

shipwreckers posted...

In all fairness, there were MANY views that went into the electoral college design (both practical and philosophical).

https://www.history.com/news/electoral-college-founding-fathers-constitutional-convention

*From the History.com Article*
"So why does the Electoral College still exist, despite its contentious origins and awkward fit with modern politics? The party in power typically benefits from the existence of the Electoral College, says Edwards, and the minority party has little chance of changing the system because a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds supermajority in Congress plus ratification by three-fourths of the states.

Plus the old-school electoral system has its benefits. With the Electoral College, for example, theres no chance of a run-off election or a protracted national recount."

So, yeah, philosophical bullshit aside, it's been kept all this time for its PRACTICAL benefits (namely it's risk-reduction of massive recounts, which is literally what I said earlier).

You're not arguing with me, Zeus. You're arguing with historians.

"Plus" doesn't denote a main benefit, it denotes an added benefit. I'm not arguing with historians, I'm arguing with somebody who is pretending that historians are arguing something that they aren't. All that aside, you're still attempting an appeal to "authority" which is even more egregious given that "historian" is an absurdly nebulous, somewhat meaningless title and there are so many historians with differing views that you can find one to support just about any point you'd like to make.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.