Just pondering here. In the latest election, Bush won 31 out of 50 states and 52% of the popular vote. He received 286 electoral votes. Had he received roughly 200,000 less votes in Ohio, he would still have had a clear popular majority of over 51.5% and a clear majority of states with 30 out of 50, yet he would have lost the Electoral College vote. The theory, as I understand it, of the Electoral College is that the President is elected to represent the states and the Electoral College system is a shield for the interests of the majority of states against a simple popular majority. There doesn’t seem, to me, to be a rational reason under the EC theory or majoritarian theory why someone should be elected President if opposed by both a majority of the states and a majority of the citizens. I’m not necessarily saying it should be changed, but I find the apparent flaw odd and am curious as to if there is a rational justification beyond “it’s the system”.
Yes, Virginia, there is a St. Valentine.