How so?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

The hurricane prevented some people in the northeast from voting, and the northeast almost unanimously votes democrat. If the popular vote decided the election, the hurricane would have hurt Obama's chances. But since we used the electoral college, all Obama needed was a majority of the vote in the Northeast; it didn't matter that some people were unable to vote.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's just an opinion of whether or not it was "useful". As the right-wing nut job that I am I strongly disagree that Sandy proved the EC's "usefulness"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

If there was a hurricane in Texas instead, would you see why the EC is useful?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

First, it wouldn't matter either way Second, that doesn't prove it's usefulness so much as its ability to skew actual results Third, people only approve of it when it helps then win elections. Democrats raged in 2000, as republicans also have. It's sketchy, doesn't show the majority vote, and doesn't proportionately represent the country's opinion. This is important in a land by, of, and for the people

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ya, cause you know we have a major natural disaster during every election.............

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Having even one election ruined by a natural disaster is one too many. So why wait for it to happen?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This doesn't even make sense. Obama won both the EC and the popular vote. Your logic is fallacious.

by Anonymous 11 years ago