Update: A new working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that candidates who loose the popular vote are increasingly likely to win the Electoral College contest, the only vote that officially counts when electing a president. Reseachers using a model that predicted the 'inversions' of 2002 and 2016 concluded that a looser of the popular vote wining the Electoral College vote is about 40% in races decided by less than 1% of popular votes, and about 30% in races decided by less than 2%. More alarmingly, that asymmetry is skewed toward Repugnants, so much so that in an inversion the GOP candidate wins 69-93% of the time! Conversely a Democrat popular looser only has a 35% chance of winning the actual contest! Is that f**cked up or what? NOT. This is what the aristocratic founders intended all along. None of them wanted the nation swayed by a populist uprising, so they put the decision of picking a head of state in the hands of an elitist cabal and out of the hands of a growing urbanized mass.
According to the research the explanation for the results lies in the fact that Democrat candidate tend to win large states by large margins and loos them by small margins. This makes little difference in the College where it is winner take all. For example, Mrs. Clinton won California by 3.5 million votes, but lost large electoral vote states, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin by 80,000 votes. Correcting this anachronism requires awarding Electoral votes proportionately, but to actually insure that the popular vote elects the president is to scrap the Electoral College entirely agrees the authors lead researcher, Michael Geruso. The take away here is: the election of Il Douche is no fluke and it very likely could happen again. Bernie Sanders has called for the abolition of the system, but not Joe Biden or Kamila Harris.
{23.08.19}The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in Baca v. Colorado Department of State that it was unconstitutional for the state to remove a "faithless" elector and replace him with one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Baca, a Democratic elector, wrote in the name of John Kasich, a Repugnant governor of Ohio at the time, even though Hillary Clinton carried the state's popular vote and all nine electoral votes were pledged to the Democratic candidate. The Colorado Secretary of State replaced Baca with another elector.
The appeals court decided that the removal of Baca as a presidential elector violated the 12th Amendment. The three judge panel in a split decision, wrote that a state does not have the authority to interfere in the vote of a presidential elector appointed under the federal constitution. This case is very significant, since it is the first federal appeals court ruling on whether an elector is bound by the results of a state's popular vote, according to Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessing. His group, Equal Citizens, brought the lawsuit resulting in the court's decision. It may be a shock to most 'Mericans to understand that their 'democracy' hangs by the thread of appointed party insiders' discretion rather than the vote of the people. Colorado has a law which requires electors to vote in conformity with the popular vote, as do most states. Binding electors to the popular vote result has been the historic practice, but this federal appeals court has made it clear that federal presidential electors act independently of a state's laws or practices, there being no grant of authority in the Constitution to a state that allows removal of an appointed elector once in office.
Lessing said that soon the Electoral College vote may result in a tie or near tie because of hyper-partisanship and gerrymandering. This situation may motivate electors like Baca to go their own way in an effort to swing an election to a candidate they actually support. Seven electors defected in the 2016 election. Two Democratic presidential candidates, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton, have lost the presidency within two decades. despite wining the popular vote. Lessing wants to see the issue resolved before there is another constitutional crisis. It took Congress sixty-three rounds of voting in 1800 to finally select Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr, the murderer of Alexander Hamilton. They were tied in the Electoral College vote.
Apparently US Person is not the only rabble rouser who thinks the institution has outlived its utility. Both Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to abolish it. The College clearly violates the modern principle of one person, one vote; that is the main reason to abolish an undemocratic anachronism intended to bolster the political influence of the South's slave economy.