Slate.com Flip Flopped on the Electoral College
The far left leaning Slate.com website, which was all for the Electoral College in an article published on the site in 2012, when Obama beat Mitt Romney, seems to have flip flopped and is not saying that we are living in the stone ages.
The site now refers to the Electoral College as an “instrument of white supremacy and sexism” and has an image featured in their article of Suffragettes. What a difference 4 years make when they were defending the use of the electoral college to elect the president, albeit calling it a “despised method” yet naming 5 reasons we need to keep it in place.
Did Slate flip flop because they have now made a conscious decision that it is in the best interests of the country that the electoral college be sent to the round file or did they flip flop because the results of the electoral college voting were not in line with what the editorial staff wanted?
Me thinks the latter.
And I have no issue with that at all as we are all entitled to our opinions but come on. Granted it was not a total reversal as Slate did say the method was less than desirable in the title of their old way of thinking article but gave 5 solid reasons why it made sense to keep it in place.
Now we have Slate parading Suffragettes in an image on the new article that blames the Electoral College for suppressing minorities and apparently leans toward women not having the right to express themselves when it comes to voting for the president.
To quote John McEnroe, “You can’t be serious!”.
That is quite the extrapolation job that was done in this article and although I’m impressed with the ability to twist something into a point of view that gives the sites’ readers what they want, I’d disappointed in the turn about, for what seems to be, because their candidate did not ultimately win the presidency. We lean more left than right here as well but I do not think you’ll see us do a 180 because we appear to be a little butt hurt over an election.
Maybe Richard and Mark, from over there, should get together and discuss the direction that Slate wants to go, or perhaps have dinner together with an editor so that they can have some consistency and not appear to do an about face because their candidate is now taking selfies in the woods in upstate New York.
I’m of the belief that the Electoral College could use some tweaking as this is 2016 and not 1787 but I’m not so sure it is not a benefit to see that the spirit of the vote (I’ll get called on that I know – feel free to email me email@example.com and do your worst) is applied to the election process and that one region over another is not overly represented.
I’m certainly not the guy that could participate to any real degree in that tweaking as there are much more qualified and knowledgeable people out there but I would not mind putting in my 2 cents.
Slate.com editors, have a chat with your people so you remain consistant and don’t look like John Kerry with his famous, “I was for the Iraq war before I was against it”.