View Single Post
Old 06-04-2019, 12:46 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,479
Originally Posted by DSYoungEsq View Post
I am quite content with the concept that a geographically broad section of the country can, in a close election, select a President despite there being fewer total votes for him/her than for the losing candidate, yes. Because one or the other must be true, and as between the two competing concepts, I prefer the latter. This is because I believe that the country remains a federation of states, and not a political whole in which states are nothing but administrative boundaries.

Now, if we start having elections in which candidates win the Presidency despite having massive vote total differentials, then I might re-think my position on the mechanic. But so far, the only president elected with a massive undervote was John Quincy Adams, and that was the result of a system of selection that no longer exists. Since then, the largest margin deficit was 3% by Rutherford B. Hayes, and that election required some substantial chicanery on the part of the winning party to succeed. Donald Trump's 2% deficit isn't enough to cause me worry; 46% to 48% is not enough to make me think the system is totally borked.
I suspect most conservatives will tolerate the current system as long as it produces results they agree with and will decide it's intolerable the first time it produces a result they don't like.