Someone has to have the power. Would you rather it be the President? 5 justices of the Supreme Court?
It's functionally impossible to have an election where one party wins the presidency but neither chamber of Congress, and 218 Representatives + 51 Senators agree to toss results
https://t.co/uK2VTXOYRm
The issue is who is responsible for counting the electoral votes and confirming they're legit. Congress exclusively has that power, and the sheer volume of people that have to be convinced to ignore the results confirms it's the right branch to have it
@Pogman42
If people want to abolish the Electoral College, go for it
But it requires 2/3 of the House + 2/3 of the Senate + 3/4 of state legislatures. It's not an attainable goal, and will not be an attainable goal in our lifetimes
Meanwhile, that energy could be better used elsewhere
https://t.co/dD9xQJSeVY
Likely unconstitutional, and unenforceable even if it were not
https://t.co/SDgRF5G6CV
Elect better Congresscritters
There is no other solution until you're in a world where amending the Constitution to remove it is plausible
https://t.co/o30AU7zAd3
Since the modern two-party Dem-Rep system began in 1860, a new President of one party has taken office with both Congressional chambers controlled by the other party in:
➡️ 1969 (Nixon)
➡️ 1973 (Ford)
That's it. 2x in 160 years.
1/
https://t.co/jkN41XhTLx
And in those 2x-in-160-years occurrences, there weren't majorities in both chambers to overturn the results
(Just like there aren't now even in a Republican-controlled Senate)
2/
@dotcommodity
That's as close to "functionally impossible" as you can get for a thing that can theoretically happen
3/3
@dotcommodity