,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
There's a lot in here to disagree with, but this strikes me as particularly absurd. nationalreview.com/2019/03/electo… 
1876 alone disproves this. Fraud and suppression marred the vote in four states, including three Southern ones rocked by white supremacist violence. Tilden led in the popular vote and the electoral vote thanks to it. Hayes needed all four states to win.
This should be when the Electoral College steps in and saves the day, right? Nope. It deadlocks with Tilden one vote shy of victory. Civil unrest appears imminent. President Grant fortifies Washington with federal troops.
The House creates a 15-member panel called the Electoral Commission to decide the winner. It chooses Hayes. He agrees to end Reconstruction to prevent an armed Southern revolt over Tilden's loss. We all know what came next.
I can't stress this point enough about 1876: The worst election dispute in U.S. history only ended after Congress created an ***entirely new body*** to do what the Electoral College couldn't.
I don't think I need to recap the 2000 election, Bush v. Gore, and the effect it had on the Supreme Court. And I think we're all pretty familiar with 2016. Though not as bad as 1876, neither situation really screams "stability and continuity."
That leaves 1888, when Cleveland lost to Harrison despite winning almost 100,000 more votes. Lots of allegations of election fraud. No mass unrest followed. Maybe the Electoral College "worked" that time, I guess?
In most elections, the Electoral College doesn't actively matter. There's a good case to be made that it passively matters by forcing candidates to focus on a handful of states and largely ignore the rest. That sucks if you’re a Republican in D.C. or a Democrat in Utah.
When it *does* actively matter, the Electoral College either 1) doesn’t work or 2) legitimizes a candidate who won fewer votes than someone else. Which, in turn, only raises the question of why that candidate should become the president at all.
