Liberals Claim Electoral College Is Biased. Here Are the Facts.

The Daily Signal ^ | October 24, 2017 | Tara Ross

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

In 1824, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams were both members of the same political party. But in every other election with a discrepancy between the electoral and popular votes, the losing candidate has been the Democrat.

Odd coincidence? Or is the Electoral College biased against the Democratic Party?

Democratic President Barack Obama seemed to imply just that in a December 2016 press conference: “The Electoral College is a vestige,” he told reporters. “It’s a carry-over. … [T]here are some structures in our political system, as envisioned by the Founders, that sometimes are going to disadvantage Democrats.”

It’s a funny thing to say, of course. Republicans have spent years bemoaning the huge lead that Democrats have enjoyed in the Electoral College.

The so-called “blue wall” was thought to be impenetrable, apparently giving Democrats an advantage before voting even started. Pundits claimed that Democrats would begin 2016 with a head start of at least 217 electoral votes—and perhaps as many as 249.

“No matter whom Republicans nominate to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in November 2016,” one columnist at The Washington Post wrote, “that candidate will start at a disadvantage. It’s not polling, Clinton’s deep résumé, or the improving state of the economy. It’s the Electoral College.”

Another political scientist made a similar prediction in 2014.

Benjamin Highton, a professor at the University of California, Davis claimed that the Democratic tilt in the Electoral College was so heavy that a Republican would be unlikely to win the 2016 election unless that Republican first won the national popular vote by at least 1 or 2 percentage points.

The actual results flipped this expectation on its head: Donald Trump won the electoral vote fairly easily, even as Clinton won the nationwide popular tally by more than 2 percentage points.

[fuzzylogic]

lol - that’s funny considering that CA is basically blue by default and puts them 1/5 of the way to winning the presidency right out of the gate.

[hinckley buzzard]

The “electoral college” is the result of the federalist intention of the Founding Fathers. As originally designed, it gives the election of the president to the states, not the people, and that reflects the intention that the States remain sovereign, and have some control over the central government. The idea was that with the state legislatures electing the president, he would have to respect the interest of the several states, not just be a king without a crown.

[spintreebob]

We are the United STATES of America. Not the United VOTERS of America, nor the United PEOPLE of America. Too many people forget that, or never learned what is in plain sight.

[Nifster]

Because they didn’t win it

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Lousy article. I read the entire summary and cannot find a theme or thesis the author is putting forward.

Re: the title, OF COURSE the Electoral College is biased. It was designed that way to ensure little states weren’t going to always get squashed by big states. The Dems always (conveniently) forget we are a republic of 50 semi-sovereign states who granted certain limited powers to a federal government.

The author seems to be a complete idiot.

[Still Thinking]

Liberals Claim Electoral College Is Biased

Well, thank heavens SOMETHING (other than reality) is biased against liberals. I was beginning to get paranoid!

[Still Thinking]

Their presidential electoral system was designed to avoid the road to ruin so typical in republics: popular election of a demagogic strongman who promises to quell that which he foments, meaning societal discord and anarchy, by rewarding his supporters and destroying his opponents.

It's not 100%, though. Ebola got selected anyway (course, probably not in REAL votes)

[Gene Eric]

To the contrary, it helps to offset the Democrat Thug Party’s voter fraud.

[Gene Eric]

Yet the county map shows a different perspective.

[sauropod]

Bkmk

[Vendome]

Wait until 2024
.

[beef]

If they wouldn't pack themselves into ideologically pure enclaves, the EC would work more in their favor. But, they insist on living where there is no diversity of opinion. Good for us, I guess.

[Rashputin]

Yeah, it lets all the little people in flyover country have a say in the election of the President.

Now that's bias no democrat fascist can tolerate.

[KC_Conspirator]

In the 2017 playoffs the Nationals scored more runs than the Cubs, yet the Cubs won the series.

If they want to max out their votes by fraud and oversaturating expense ad markets that they already own, go ahead. It makes them on dimensional.

[upchuck]

Clinton’s deep, dark résumé

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[KarlInOhio]

Clinton’s deep résumé

Married to a political con man who got himself elected president.
Handed a safe Democrat Senate seat for a state she had never lived in.
Handed a cabinet position to shut her up after losing a primary.
Co-running one of the largest money laundries in history.

So deep of a resume that angler fish live at the bottom.

[Sasparilla]

...Liberals Claim Electoral College Is Biased. Here Are the Facts....

Any loss the lunatic liberals have is based on bias.

[Sgt_Schultze]

What remains unsaid by leftists in all these pathetic whinescreeds about the EC, is that NO Clinton has ever won a majority of votes cast in any election for president. They don’t want a majority of popular votes winner. Democrats want a plurality winner

[Bikkuri]

Minus the ‘SuperPacs’ :p