Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
What's "brilliant" about setting things up so that the loser of the election wins the office?
Let's face it, you'd be howling to the heavens about the EC if Obama had won the Presidency while losing the popular vote by three million. The candidate who gets the most votes should win. Since it's a national office, what's the point in breaking it up state by state? It's a clumsy anachronism.
The rule that the loser of the election actually wins--if he's a Republican--have gotten us the two worst Presidents in American history. With Dubya, we got two wars and a global recession. With Trump, we've gotten the destruction of everything good about this country.
LMAO if I remember right, I think there was someone who had an issue with the Electoral College a few years ago, he was tweeting about the fact that the Electoral College needed to be eliminated and was outdated, which was ironic because his favorite target was President Obama, who won twice, both of which were popular vote and EC wins. Wish I could remember who that was, he tweets all the time, total jackass....just can't remember his name. Oh well, I'm sure he's insignificant, whoever he is. :)