Quotes of All Topics . Occasions . Authors
The Electoral College is justified and right.
Texas is now a cornerstone of the electoral college for Republicans.
Most people don't understand the Electoral College; they don't know why it exists.
The Electoral College needs to go, because it's made our society less and less democratic.
Presidents are elected not by direct popular vote but by 538 members of the Electoral College.
Every citizen's vote should count in America, not just the votes of partisan insiders in the Electoral College.
It's clear enough that there was substantial fraud in Ohio, thus delivering the Electoral College vote for President Bush.
As the country's third-largest state by population, Florida is the crown jewel in the Electoral College among swing states.
Much as banks don't care where your money's coming from, the Electoral College is all 'don't ask, don't care' when it comes to votes.
If neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump nor I are able to win 270 in the electoral college... then it will go the House of Representatives.
I would anticipate that the Electoral College will be held on the 13th of December, and our 20 electorate votes will go to the certified winner.
What is the purpose of the electoral college? It has a few purposes. One, it's to restrain pure democracy. Very good, very important, that's a wonderful thing.
Now that Donald Trump has won the presidency despite losing the popular vote, there's a growing cry to rethink, or even abolish, the electoral college. This would be a mistake.
The Electoral College was necessary when communications were poor, literacy was low, and voters lacked information about out-of-state figures, which is clearly no longer the case.
The fact that populism is flourishing internationally, far from the Electoral College and Fox News, suggests that Trump's specific faults might actually be propping up American liberalism.
After immersing myself in the mysteries of the Electoral College for a novel I wrote in the '90s, I came away believing that the case for scrapping it is less obvious than I originally thought.
While imperfect, the electoral college has generally served the republic well. It forces candidates to campaign in a variety of closely contested races, where political debate is typically robust.
The Electoral College is provided for in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution. More space in the Constitution is devoted to laying out the Electoral College than to any other concept in the document.
When dealing with American politics, you try to follow the money, and that's where it leads you. It doesn't take you to the electoral college or to Princeton. It takes you down the darker alleys of American life.
Part of the elements of the electoral college is creation. Certainly it was created in slave states and them wanting to balance power, but there's not a specific set of the country always determining who the president is.
No one likes the Electoral College, expect perhaps those who were elected because of it. No one likes gerrymandering, except those doing the gerrymandering. No one likes the filibuster, except those doing the filibustering.
Time and again a close election leads to hand-wringing about the need for Electoral College reform; time and again, politicians and parties respond to the college's incentives, and more capacious and unifying majorities are born.
Last I looked - and I'm not a candidate - but last time I checked reading about the Constitution, the Electoral College has nothing to do with parties, has absolutely nothing to do with parties. It's most states are winners take all.
Facts have come to light that indicate that a pivotal, close election was likely changed through voter fraud on Nov. 8, 2016: New Hampshire's U.S. Senate Seat, and perhaps also New Hampshire's four electoral college votes in the presidential election.
The Framers of the Constitution expected the presidency to be occupied by special individuals, selfless people of the highest character and ability. They intended the Electoral College to be a truly deliberative body, not the largely ceremonial institution it has become today.
Some of George W. Bush's friends say that Bush believes God called him to be president during these times of trial. But God told me that He/She/It had actually chosen Al Gore by making sure that Gore won the popular vote and, God thought, the Electoral College. 'That worked for everyone else,' God said.
If the Democrats want to make an efficacy or merit-based argument with respect to the Electoral College, then by all means make it. It ought to be based in history and fact not fanciful revisionist history, and it should be made not just during an election year because of discontent with the electoral outcome.
In the 2012 election, the polls that had made Mitt Romney so confident that he was going to win were his own internal polls, based on models that failed to accurately estimate voter turnout. But the public polls, especially statewide polls, painted a fairly accurate picture of how the electoral college might go.
As much as progressives hate the Electoral College - and we can argue its flaws all day long - in 2020, the Electoral College is the only game in town. There's not going to be some miracle where it's not the rule book. The winner of the Electoral College is president. Doesn't matter how many popular votes you get.
I remember George W. Bush, who spoke about bringing the country together. Here's a man who knew that he lost the popular vote but ended up with the Electoral College vote. He had lost that, and he spoke in a very inclusive way of bringing Republicans and Democrats together. It reflected what a president should do.
In the 2000 presidential election, Al Gore got more votes than George W. Bush, but still lost the election. The Supreme Court's ruling in Florida gave Bush that pivotal state, and doomed Gore to lose the Electoral College. That odd scenario - where the candidate with the most votes loses - has happened three times in U.S. history.