One purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent a limited number of pockets of dense population from determining the outcome of presidential elections. In that sense, it is a bit similar to the US Senate, and acts to give powers to the states as opposed to treating the country as one large electorate.
Without the Electoral College, the recent election would have been decided by heavily populated cities in the states of California and New York. With that in mind, voters could expect to see candidates spend the overwhelming majority of their time in geographical areas with dense populations, leaving those with sparse populations largely ignored.
Liberals chafe at the Electoral College for the same reason they are irritated by each state getting two senators regardless of population — it gives power to the states and recognizes them as significant political entities. It’s the same as the “states’ rights” argument which militates against a powerful national government. Hence, this is not a new argument at all, but one that goes back to the founding of our nation.
That liberals hate the Electoral College is illustrated by the comments of one Supreme Court justice. More on page two.
The Founding Fathers were thinking of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, when they developed and passed the law !
Did she forget to resign and retire if Trump got elected?
Go back to sleep granny. It’s not your job.
We are waiting for this old women to retire ….
retire we need a justicertain who does not sleep during court.
Just keep changing your depends you will be fine.
You are a disgrace.
Drop dead you old hag!!!
Well your job is to uphold the law. So get over yourself. You know the exact reason for the electoral college so now we know know you do not uphold the equality of every vote.$#%&!@*traitor
New Zealand don’t want her communist ass