There are a number of arguments for and against the Electoral College, and yet there are not two legitimate sides to the debate, because every one of the losing side’s arguments belies borderline mental retardation. In every claim about what the system does, E.C. supporters are flat wrong, by empirical fact. And in every claim about why what it actually does is a good thing, they are nothing less than clinically delusional.

I’ll split their claims into “this is what it does” and “this is why it’s a good thing”—descriptive and normative arguments, in the business. Many claims are taken straight from Wikipedia*, from the “pro” side, so you know I’m not making this shit up. People actually make these arguments. And yes, they ride short buses to the Capitol.

“This Is What It Does]”

Idiotic Argument

If we didn’t heavily weight the smaller states, people would only spend time campaigning in the big, urban areas. Small, rural states wouldn’t get any attention. Under our present utopic and perfect system, small states get loads of attention, right?

Also, it prevents sectionalism for reasons that are far too obvious to explain!

Why You Should Kill Yourself

You are a worthless husk of hate and stupid rolled up into a blunt and smoked by a turd.

Small, rural states don’t get any love under our system because they’re not swing states–they’re solidly Republican. Nobody pays them any attention. So you’re just simply wrong that it helps get their issues weighed in any way.

However, in a popular vote situation, they would likely form some kind of voting bloc–you know, the way every voting demographic would–and their views would be weighed proportional to how many of them there are. Kind of like, everybody else.

Sectionalism is rampant under this system—unambiguously rampant. If we used the popular vote, we wouldn’t see maps of red states and blue states, we’d see a nation in gradients of mixed purple.

In conclusion, you’re a dumbass.

Idiotic Argument

The E.C. is great because it requires widespread popular support to win. This makes perfect sense and is not at all the dumbest thing you will ever hear in your life.

I would really like to go shove a pencil up my nose now.

Why You Should Kill Yourself

No, it requires absurdly small margins of voters in specific states to win, regardless of the margins elsewhere. The measure that would require widespread popular support is the one that measures widespread popular support, a measure sometimes known as the “widespread popular vote”.

Here’s a pencil.

Idiotic Argument

The United States of America is a federal coalition that consists of component states.

Also, John Quincy Adams is our President.

Why You Should Kill Yourself

This view is older and more irrelevant than John McCain.

It’s been outdated since the Supreme Court ruling of North vs. South in 1865, when the issue of States’ Rights was put to rest alongside the bodies of a bunch of guys in grey shirts and no shoes. States these days, in every way other than voting through the E.C., function only as administrative districts. Without the ability to secede, the “sovereignty” of states is meaningless. If you want to change that incontrovertible truth, please go ahead and try. But in the meantime, do not present as fact what has not been political reality in a hundred and fifty years.

(As a side note, Justice Roberts’ dissenting opinion on North vs. South was full of incoherent ramblings and logical fallacies that make entertaining reading, and I encourage my readers to look into it.)

Idiotic Argument

It enhances the power of minority groups, since they can give the candidate the edge they need to win.

Why You Should Kill Yourself

Oh, you mean like the African-American voters in Alabama who have never once mattered in their lives? Or the Latino voters in California who do nothing but increase the Democrats’ majority there and therefore also make no difference and have never once mattered in their lives?

Oh, I see, you’re referring to the way the Jewish population of Squirrel Hill could ultimately decide a presidential election. You meant minorities in swing states! Silly me for thinking a national election should be about the nation and not about Squirrel Hill.

Yeah, I can see why people would think this way. Politicians do court minority votes, even if not as much as they otherwise would. This leads James H. Electoralcollegesupporter to say, “See, they matter!” and he hastens to declare the glory of the system to the world. This analysis comes down to no thought process more sophisticated than, “Hey, I think some people just voted.” Any actual comparison of the two systems could not but find that minorities are, by and large, disenfranchised under the E.C.

You know who can’t declare the glory of the system like James did? The millions of Hispanics in California who are silenced by it. Also, dead people and the mute, but that’s mostly because they can’t talk. If you’re a Californian dead mute Hispanic, then you’re REALLY fucked.

Tl;dr: your argument makes sense as an argument for the popular vote and is completely incoherent when applied to your own system.

Idiotic Argument

If a candidate dies after he’s elected under the popular vote a dead guy would rise to office! THEREFORE WE NEED ELECTORS TO MAKE EVERYTHING OKAY AND TUCK US IN AT NIGHT BECAUSE ONLY THEY ARE WISE ENOUGH TO FIX THIS VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM!!!

Why You Should Kill Yourself

Ummm… hold another election? Have his VP take over? Provide a plan like either of those two for this contingency in the amendment that banishes the E.C.? Oh, you’re right, we don’t actually have any ways of dealing with this, what am I thinking.

P.S. You know what, have another pencil. (This one’s mechanical. It’s SCIENCE!)

Idiotic Argument

It isolates election problems to the state in which they occurred. Yay!

Why You Should Kill Yourself

I don’t even know [...]]]>

There are a number of arguments for and against the Electoral College, and yet there are not two legitimate sides to the debate, because every one of the losing side’s arguments belies borderline mental retardation. In every claim about what the system does, E.C. supporters are flat wrong, by empirical fact. And in every claim about why what it actually does is a good thing, they are nothing less than clinically delusional.

I’ll split their claims into “this is what it does” and “this is why it’s a good thing”—descriptive and normative arguments, in the business. Many claims are taken straight from Wikipedia*, from the “pro” side, so you know I’m not making this shit up. People actually make these arguments. And yes, they ride short buses to the Capitol.

Idiotic Argument

If we didn’t heavily weight the smaller states, people would only spend time campaigning in the big, urban areas. Small, rural states wouldn’t get any attention. Under our present utopic and perfect system, small states get loads of attention, right?

Also, it prevents sectionalism for reasons that are far too obvious to explain!

Why You Should Kill Yourself

You are a worthless husk of hate and stupid rolled up into a blunt and smoked by a turd.

Small, rural states don’t get any love under our system because they’re not swing states–they’re solidly Republican. Nobody pays them any attention. So you’re just simply wrong that it helps get their issues weighed in any way.

However, in a popular vote situation, they would likely form some kind of voting bloc–you know, the way every voting demographic would–and their views would be weighed proportional to how many of them there are. Kind of like, everybody else.

Sectionalism is rampant under this system—unambiguously rampant. If we used the popular vote, we wouldn’t see maps of red states and blue states, we’d see a nation in gradients of mixed purple.

In conclusion, you’re a dumbass.

Idiotic Argument

The E.C. is great because it requires widespread popular support to win. This makes perfect sense and is not at all the dumbest thing you will ever hear in your life.

I would really like to go shove a pencil up my nose now.

Why You Should Kill Yourself

No, it requires absurdly small margins of voters in specific states to win, regardless of the margins elsewhere. The measure that would require widespread popular support is the one that measures widespread popular support, a measure sometimes known as the “widespread popular vote”.

Here’s a pencil.

Idiotic Argument

The United States of America is a federal coalition that consists of component states.

Also, John Quincy Adams is our President.

Why You Should Kill Yourself

This view is older and more irrelevant than John McCain.

It’s been outdated since the Supreme Court ruling of North vs. South in 1865, when the issue of States’ Rights was put to rest alongside the bodies of a bunch of guys in grey shirts and no shoes. States these days, in every way other than voting through the E.C., function only as administrative districts. Without the ability to secede, the “sovereignty” of states is meaningless. If you want to change that incontrovertible truth, please go ahead and try. But in the meantime, do not present as fact what has not been political reality in a hundred and fifty years.

(As a side note, Justice Roberts’ dissenting opinion on North vs. South was full of incoherent ramblings and logical fallacies that make entertaining reading, and I encourage my readers to look into it.)

Idiotic Argument

It enhances the power of minority groups, since they can give the candidate the edge they need to win.

Why You Should Kill Yourself

Oh, you mean like the African-American voters in Alabama who have never once mattered in their lives? Or the Latino voters in California who do nothing but increase the Democrats’ majority there and therefore also make no difference and have never once mattered in their lives?

Oh, I see, you’re referring to the way the Jewish population of Squirrel Hill could ultimately decide a presidential election. You meant minorities in swing states! Silly me for thinking a national election should be about the nation and not about Squirrel Hill.

Yeah, I can see why people would think this way. Politicians do court minority votes, even if not as much as they otherwise would. This leads James H. Electoralcollegesupporter to say, “See, they matter!” and he hastens to declare the glory of the system to the world. This analysis comes down to no thought process more sophisticated than, “Hey, I think some people just voted.” Any actual comparison of the two systems could not but find that minorities are, by and large, disenfranchised under the E.C.

You know who can’t declare the glory of the system like James did? The millions of Hispanics in California who are silenced by it. Also, dead people and the mute, but that’s mostly because they can’t talk. If you’re a Californian dead mute Hispanic, then you’re REALLY fucked.

Tl;dr: your argument makes sense as an argument for the popular vote and is completely incoherent when applied to your own system.

Idiotic Argument

If a candidate dies after he’s elected under the popular vote a dead guy would rise to office! THEREFORE WE NEED ELECTORS TO MAKE EVERYTHING OKAY AND TUCK US IN AT NIGHT BECAUSE ONLY THEY ARE WISE ENOUGH TO FIX THIS VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM!!!

Why You Should Kill Yourself

Ummm… hold another election? Have his VP take over? Provide a plan like either of those two for this contingency in the amendment that banishes the E.C.? Oh, you’re right, we don’t actually have any ways of dealing with this, what am I thinking.

P.S. You know what, have another pencil. (This one’s mechanical. It’s SCIENCE!)

Idiotic Argument

It isolates election problems to the state in which they occurred. Yay!

Why You Should Kill Yourself

I don’t even know what this means. I showed this to a bunch of dead mute Californian Hispanics and none of them knew either. Nobody knows what this means—because it’s completely backwards.

You mean “isolates problems to the state in which they occur” in the same way Florida’s irregularities never impact the national election, right?

It’s a national fucking election, people—if you have something happen, it impacts something else. I learned that from Newton. Unless your system is “have each state vote, throw the results away, and play eenie-meenie-miney-moe” you won’t be isolating the problem.

In fact, you’re making fraud both more easy, and more beneficial. An edge of 500 votes in Florida is much easier to manufacture than 500,000 votes nationally. Why? BECAUSE ONE OF THE NUMBERS IS BIGGER. And I learned that from my first grade teacher, Mrs. McKlintock—almost as cool as Newton and much sexier.

Idiotic Argument

This one is nuanced in its mind-blowing stupidity, so I’ll copy straight from Wikipedia.

[The E.C. maintains] the separation of powers. The Constitution separated government into three branches that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.

Why Wikipedia Should Kill Itself

See my John Quincy Adams objection above about the relevance of this in modern times. By their own admission, Senators aren’t elected by the state legislatures anymore, rendering this interpretation out of date by its own premise. It changed because, in the timeless words of Daniel Webster, “That’s fucking retarded.” Yes, these provisions were Constitutional. They were also dumb.

I’ll transition on this point into,

*I’ve had this debate many times with real-life people active in politics. It is as dismaying as it is frightening. I use Wikipedia’s organization of their arguments because it mentions, concisely and definitively, every argument of theirs that I’ve heard, and formulates them in the best possible light–giving them the most favorable analysis here of any possible.