<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Case For The Electoral College,&nbsp;Ctd]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>Douthat <a href="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/can-the-electoral-college-survive/" target="_self">fears</a> &quot;that the electoral college can’t long survive if electoral/popular splits start happening much more frequently&quot;:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s one thing to have a system that almost always reflects the will of the majority, and once every hundred years (or fifty, if you believe&#0160;<a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/19/did_jfk_lose_the_popular_vote_115833.html">Sean Trende’s fascinating analysis</a>&#0160;of the 1960 popular vote) delivers a narrowly countermajoritarian outcome. It’s quite another to have one that delivers countermajoritarian outcomes every twelve years – or worse, leads to the kind of post-election nightmare scenario (a tie in the college plus an Obama popular vote lead) that David Frum&#0160;<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/22/and-what-if-it-s-a-tie.html">imagines here</a>. However much weight we place on state sovereignty and the importance of heterogeneity in party coalitions, we are still ultimately a democratic republic, and a system of presidential elections that seems too flagrantly and frequently anti-democratic simply cannot be sustained.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Earlier thoughts <a href="http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-case-for-the-electoral-college.html">here</a>.</p>
]]></html></oembed>