,
27 tweets,
6 min read
Read on Twitter
Via @RalstonReports, here's an argument for retaining the Electoral College.
It is spectacularly terrible.
It is spectacularly terrible.
This, for example, is a retreat to abstraction. When people make abstract arguments like this, it's generally because their argument isn't supported by practical reality.
And sure, in theory a majority of voters could (for example) elect a racist demagogue with authoritarian tendencies.
In practice, a minority of voters elected a racist demagogue with authoritarian tendencies. Thanks to the Electoral College.
In practice, a minority of voters elected a racist demagogue with authoritarian tendencies. Thanks to the Electoral College.
But let's say for the sake of argument that there should be checks on majority rule. Absent from this argument: any attempt to demonstrate that the Electoral College serves as a useful check on majoritarian abuses.
At least in the early days the Electoral College *as a body* sometimes acted independently. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, at least it's a thing. Today there is no deliberative function at all. In practice, Electors simply ratify the voters of their state.
Here she tries to argue for EC by lumping it in with the checks and balances among the branches of government. This argument by association notwithstanding, the latter were checks on powerful people, while the former is a check on the populace.
Whether founders were really elitist (they mostly were) is irrelevant to whether one of their institutions has an elitist impact.
This here is just stunningly wrong. Like, 180 degrees wrong. Or maybe 540.
I mean, you would have to be a super-human genius to guess which states will be close enough to be worth targeting, right? It's not as if we have any polling that might tell us something like that.
I mean, let's say for argument's sake that 100,000 votes are stolen in, say, Wisconsin. Under a popular vote system, the impact is negligible. Under the EC, that could potentially flip an election.
I know I should move on from this point but really, WHAT THE FUCK? How can anyone make an argument like that with a straight face?
And now we get to where she argues that the Electoral College worked as intended in 2016.
No, really, She actually argues this.
No, really, She actually argues this.
Her unstated assumptios about what constitutes a "coalition" are doing a shitload of work in this tweet. So, by the way, are some unstated assumptions about race.
"NO ONE" focused on coalition building? Trying to include Black, white, Latino, and Asian-Americans; working people, environmentalists; leftists, liberals, and moderates; that, apparently, is not building a coalition.
Clinton was actually criticized from the left, harshly and constantly, for trying to leave a window open for disaffected Republicans. But no, that's not focusing on building a coalition.
Trump was mostly *not* focused on building a coalition. Their whole strategy was *anti-coalition*: divide the electorate as deeply as possible on the assumption that they would come up with the biggest share.
Which they didn't. But they won anyway! Because of the Electoral College! In other words, in 2016 the Electoral College rewarded the *opposite* of coalition-building.
I...can't...even...
I'm sorry, was "economic anxiety" unavailable for that tweet? Was it too expensive, so she settled for the inferior off-brand rationalization?
But that brings us to the single enormous omission from this entire lengthy thread. With the exception of the very first tweet, the whole thread exists in a country where race and racism simply don't exist.
Sorry, I meant the third tweet. There it is: the word "slavery". Remember this? Remember how she said slavery-based arguments aren't true? Then she just...drops it. At no point does she try to make that argument.
In the real world? Yes, slavery was a consideration. And more to the point, the Electoral College does privilege white votes at the expense of everyone else.
So @TaraRoss' whole argument rests on 1) appealing to the authority of the Founders, 2) ignoring the practical reality of the thing wherever possible, and 3) where real-world events have to be acknowledged, drawing the exact opposite conclusion from what they point to.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...
Addendum: one point I meant to make back in the discussion of coalitions is that @TaraRoss is making the unspoken assumption that diversity itself is somehow divisive. It's an assumption you see all the time, but it's always worth pointing out wherever it crops up.
Other Addendum: forgot this link for the point that the EC privileges white votes. vox.com/the-big-idea/2…
Son of the Other Addendum: I'll just leave this here... 
