Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Shemp Howard

(889 posts)

3. Yes and no.

Reply to Travis_0004 (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 1, 2016, 10:06 PM

Dec 2016

At the union work site, the majority of carpenters must vote for the new contract, and so must the majority of the plumbers, and so must the majority of the electricians. Any one of the three unions can stop the work, so management must try make them all happy.

Same goes with presidential candidates. He/she must work to address the concerns of as many different groups as possible. And that's a good thing. It's better when both the farmer and the factory worker are listened to.

I freely admit that my analogy is not perfect. And that's because the Electoral College system is so weird.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

An argument for the Electoral College [View all] Shemp Howard Dec 2016 OP

Dont you still end up with the same problem Travis_0004 Dec 2016 #1

Yes and no. Shemp Howard Dec 2016 #3

isn't this the reason we have Senators (states) and Represenatives (districts)? TuslaUltra Dec 2016 #2

That is a fair counter-argument. (nt) Shemp Howard Dec 2016 #4

if... the Electoral College worked handmade34 Dec 2016 #5

In reality the popular vote caters to more different groups than the EC does Stargleamer Dec 2016 #6