BRUTAL: Elliott Hamilton SCHOOLS Atlantic writer so badly on the electoral college he deletes his tweet

The Left hates the electoral college because it protects ‘flyover states’ from the coasts. You can bet your sweet bippy that if the EC benefitted larger, urban areas and would limit middle America’s ability to have a say in how this country is run they’d be shouting from the highest mountain that they love it.

But since it protects the minority from mob rule, the mob aka the Left, they HATE IT.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA https://t.co/7plMFPlrF5

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

He deleted it. Whatever could it have been …

.@thor_benson deleted this steaming hot take of a tweet. But like everything else, Twitter is forever. pic.twitter.com/AFyckPXimJ

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

Wow.

We can see why he deleted this hot mess.

😂🤣😂How desperate they are it’s funny and sad at the same time.

— Jessica (@dicidini) April 9, 2018

It’s not fair that all Americans have a say in running this country, WAAAAAAAH.

Very smart response. Enlightening.

— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) April 9, 2018

The Electoral College exists to prevent the tyranny of the popular majority from monopolizing on both legislative and executive power. It serves to protect the interests of the plurality of states that don’t have the same population density. https://t.co/4DJA9GFnjJ

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

Simple.

Thus, @thor_benson, it is ridiculous to claim that the electoral college violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause when it serves as a mechanism to protect the interests of the lesser populated states.

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

Pretty basic civics right here.

That’s not why it was created.https://t.co/w1EhuBGhXM

— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) April 9, 2018

Uh-oh, he sent a WaPo article. He means business!

“I don’t agree with your premise, so I’m going to cite an opinion piece in the Washington Post to support my view.” 🤷🏻‍♂️ https://t.co/VSUDeZTXDe

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

Heh.

There are 1,000 articles explaining the historical context behind the electoral college. Take your pick.

— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) April 9, 2018

*sigh*

Historical records suggest that the electoral college was placed in order to placate the tyrannical tendencies of a direct democracy. Madison made that case clear during the Constitutional Convention. https://t.co/PXFLkN6rHa

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

Here’s what Madison said, @thor_benson: “[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements…

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

… to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual…

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

Yeah, we’ll take Madison over WaPo, call us crazy.

It was part of the argument but by no means the entire reason it was created

— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) April 9, 2018

Dude, give it up.

If you concede that this was one of the driving factors behind the EC, then why are you eager to dismiss the notion that it was intended to check larger states from having the larger say on who becomes President? https://t.co/loUjyeUNjn

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

Because TRUUUUUUUUUMP.

I concede it was one of the many arguments being made at the time, but what I’d like to note now is we’re reaching a point where the disparity between how much a vote in a populous state counts versus one in a state with very few people is absurd and unfair.

— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) April 9, 2018

Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. If you were to change the electoral college system as a means of allowing the popular vote winner to acquire the presidency, then wouldn’t that minimize the voices of the plurality of the lesser populous states? https://t.co/EkTVPidqE9

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

This is getting long … sheesh these guys are mouthy.

Heh.

1. They’d still be sending their people to Congress. 2. Their vote shouldn’t count more than mine or someone in, let’s say, Texas just because they happen to live in a low population state.

— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) April 9, 2018

Ah, but don’t the people in the populous states having more voting power when it comes to the selection of the Presidency without the EC? Taking it away would render the votes of less populous state voters meaningless. How is that fair? https://t.co/dzXkoxb2tK

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

It’s not.

Which is why Lefties like Thor want to do away with it, they can’t always win when it’s fair.

Your argument would seem to imply 1 million people voting, in general, is meaningless because that 1 million doesn’t get to pick the president by themselves

— Thor Benson (@thor_benson) April 9, 2018

And his argument implies a voter in California is more important than a voter in Wyoming because of their population, and it’s just not so.

I beg to differ. That one million could make a significant impact in *any* state. Sure, the EC renders a million in a state like Iowa slightly more voting power than in California, but a million voters in each state contributes to where the state swings. https://t.co/Ly5HRBh7oa

— Elliott Hamilton (@ElliottRHams) April 9, 2018

What he said.

Editor’s note: These two gents came to an amicable enough conclusion to agree to disagree.


Related:

Resistance GOLD! WaPo editor floats idea to get Trump out of office that sinks QUICKLY

Take a SEAT: James Woods LEVELS Kamala Harris for claiming ‘immigrants’ aren’t getting care

‘Thank you, come again!’ The Simpsons flips the bird to sad SJW whining about Apu’s character

The post BRUTAL: Elliott Hamilton SCHOOLS Atlantic writer so badly on the electoral college he deletes his tweet appeared first on twitchy.com.