Electoral College System Analysis

Both chapters talk about issues with the system the United States has in place for the electing of presidents, with one dealing with the primary system and the other dealing with the electoral college. Both chapters point to the continuous election of 1824, where Henry Clay handed the election to John Quincy Adams by turning heel and suplexing Andrew Jackson at a “Hell in the Cell” match at Congress-tlemania 1824. While contentious, this was also the start of professional wrestling in the United States

National Primary:

The argument for a national primary aims to solve some of the problems inherent with the system by moving primary voting to a one-day “main event” with possible run-offs rather than the current system. The argument is that with the current front loading system, nominations can be decided long before most states have a chance to vote. It would also lessen the role of the media acting as a “kingmaker” and

Have you met them? They’re assholes. It also helps reduce the field. In a system with just the popular vote mattered, a candidate who lost in a primary may seriously consider a run in the general, which would just causer a massive headache. By having only two real viable candidates, it “encourages” consensus. And with so few states being actually competitive, it encourages retail politics. So Americans can see how a candidate works as a person. And as an Illinoisan, I appreciate not being overwhelmed with ads during the election year. In a popular vote only system, yikes. On top of that, in a popular vote only system, candidates would only go to big cities rather than the rest of the country. The electoral college also means someone like Delaney’s vote doesn’t mean anything in Illinois, which is great because she’s racist. If you’re reading this in class, you should totally nod at her disapprovingly. Anyway, Rankin likes the electoral college, so there is no point arguing