Post #16111 by onepoorguy on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 3

No, because Reps benefit from the electoral college. Close races can become blowouts because of the distortions of the EC, and a few times the candidate with the fewest popular votes has won because of the EC (and, at least for the last few decades, it has always been a Rep).

I more or less understand why the EC was conceived, even if I disagree with it. I think Madison also hated it, IIRC. The Senate membership was supposed to compensate for varying state populations (i.e. 2 senators per state, period). The EC was probably unnecessary then, and arguably is harmful now. Certainly superfluous. The EC enables a "tyranny of the minority", as I recently heard it stated.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.