No, the whole point of the electoral college is to prevent a fascist from becoming President, so it’s their fucking moral duty not to vote for him.

It’s known as arguing in the alternative, and it’s perfectly valid.

This article means well but rests on a (all-too-familiar) false equivalence between Clinton and Trump. Both have large and small flaws as presidential candidates, but they are not equally bad, and “undemocratically” blocking one from office, had she won, is not the same as “undemocratically” blocking the other.…

Counterpoint: There is no cognitive dissonance between A) recognizing that the electoral college is a wholly undemocratic way to choose a president; and B) understanding that the electoral college is how we choose presidents, and therefore trying to work within that system to obtain a not-apocalyptic result.

As a liberal, I’m thrilled with anyone who votes for someone their state didn’t vote for, either side. Anything that calls attention to how fucking stupid the Electoral College is and maybe prompts some change.

It’s not “intellectually dishonest” to favor abolishing an institution that you also think should do the job it was created for.

Bingo. The College was designed to circumvent exactly this kind of situation.

I’m not sure you know what “deplorable” means, especially in the context of this specific election.

His argument is totally sound: the electoral college was set up to deny the will of the people if the people vote for a lunatic. It was not set up for the sake of smaller states or some other nonsense I have read. The Founding Fathers(tm) didn’t trust voters. The FFs also didn’t want direct election of u.s. Senators.…

...538 people conspiring together to decide the president is about as un-democratic an electoral process as one could imagine. 

But that’s the system.

Fuck that - the electoral college was specifically designed to make sure populism couldn’t take root.