Also, I personally feel the Electoral College is archaic and was built upon the principal of inequality. It is also the only reason George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump even got elected in the first place; neither had the popular vote.
I could write an entire essay on how the US and the world would be better off without the Electoral College, but I would just be preaching to the choir and probably nobody would bother reading it (lol.)
That first one was a ‘no one won so it’s up to the House and Senate’ scenario, not a ‘popular vote winner didn’t get the electoral college and his opponent did’ scenario.
It was also at the time viewed as going pretty smoothly. Henry Clay had third place and thus was eligable to be picked, and he had a ton of influence in the House as he was Speaker and probably could have gotten himself picked, but he didn’t do that and instead backed John Quincy Adams who he was closer to than Jackson. That’s kind of how it’s supposed to go, the third place guy and the second place guy had a lot more in common than the first place guy so did a proto-coalition.
Also Rutherford Hayes and Grover Cleveland.
Note that the other two times this happened were during the late 1800s, an era of extreme political polarization, violence, and very very high turnout.
High turnout in general is associated with closer outcomes. The highest turnout of the 1900s(and the only one with higher turnout since 1900 than 2020) was the 1960 election which was a mess.
Also, I personally feel the Electoral College is archaic and was built upon the principal of inequality. It is also the only reason George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump even got elected in the first place; neither had the popular vote.
I could write an entire essay on how the US and the world would be better off without the Electoral College, but I would just be preaching to the choir and probably nobody would bother reading it (lol.)
The Electoral College failed its purpose in 2016
Yes. Though, I would argue it failed five times so far:
Edit: Today, I cannot spell.
That first one was a ‘no one won so it’s up to the House and Senate’ scenario, not a ‘popular vote winner didn’t get the electoral college and his opponent did’ scenario. It was also at the time viewed as going pretty smoothly. Henry Clay had third place and thus was eligable to be picked, and he had a ton of influence in the House as he was Speaker and probably could have gotten himself picked, but he didn’t do that and instead backed John Quincy Adams who he was closer to than Jackson. That’s kind of how it’s supposed to go, the third place guy and the second place guy had a lot more in common than the first place guy so did a proto-coalition.
Also Rutherford Hayes and Grover Cleveland. Note that the other two times this happened were during the late 1800s, an era of extreme political polarization, violence, and very very high turnout. High turnout in general is associated with closer outcomes. The highest turnout of the 1900s(and the only one with higher turnout since 1900 than 2020) was the 1960 election which was a mess.