[andrepd]

There's no way you're seriously making this argument. I don't know what else to say except repeat myself.

The US electoral college is an historical artifact that simply rubber stamps the votes of the States. The member states' heads of government make the decision themselves! The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves.

Jesus christ.

[saubeidl]

> The equivalent would be the electoral college simply voting for the president themselves.

That is... exactly what they are doing?

[andrepd]

The electoral college delegates choose the president of their own free will? There is no presidential election? You literally have to be trawling at this point.

[saubeidl]

The electoral college is elected. It then chooses the president, who is not elected by the people. The electoral college is not necessarily reflective of the popular vote, as famously demonstrated by the 2016 election.

All of this is simple fact. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

The term presidential election is a euphemizing misnomer, more accurately it would be called presidential electoral college election.

[andrepd]

If you don't mind me asking, are you autistic? You are conflating the de jure (winning the popular vote wins you the state's electors) with the de facto (the electors are a pro forma/rubber stamp).

[saubeidl]

I am not. And they aren't. You are trying to brush over a significant point to avoid admitting my comparison made sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_electors_in_the_2016...

[andrepd]

The comparison does NOT make sense. One is a body pledged, often legally, to vote for the state's winning candidate, with only extremely rare deviations by faithless electors (which never once came even close to putting the popular electoral results in question). The other is a body who is explicitly tasked with making the decision from scratch. Is it possible that you acknowledge that these are not in the slightest the same?