[aahortwwy]

It's not obvious that deleting the electoral college would cause US presidential elections to have more representative results.

Firstly, US presidential election results are largely determined by turnout and switching from an electoral college to a single, winner-take-all bloc wouldn't change that underlying reality.

Secondly, even if you accept that "most votes wins" produces representative election results, it turns out that there are all kinds of wacky situations that can emerge in seemingly simple voting systems based on that idea.

Finally, there's a very strong argument to be made that "most votes wins" results in significant minorites being perenially underrepresented, increasingly ignored, and then ultimately disenfranchised.

[ultramundane8]

"More representationally elected" does NOT equate to any of the absolute garbage you are assuming are my views.

Please respond to actual comments rather than your vivid imagination.

I mean, seriously, try to find evidence of your response in my comment. Please, try your best. This is why there is no more "good faith."

[aahortwwy]

Right back at you.

[ultramundane8]

Literally your entire comment is based on the assumption that I advocated "a single, winner-take-all-bloc." Elementary reading comprehension in all its scarcity reveals that I never said that.

What is your point exactly?

[aahortwwy]

I'm hungover and posted a non-sequitur response to your comment which - as you pointed out - was largely responding to my own imagination. A mental lapse on my part. My bad.

There's a sad irony in the fact that in reminding me to assume good faith you actually did the opposite - assumed I was attacking you rather than having just made a mistake. And now you're rudely suggesting that I lack elementary reading comprehension. Maybe in my current state, sure. Not generally.

Calm down and be kind. Golden rule and all that.