Title: 3 Arguments for Keeping Electoral College Are All Wrong | Time
Headings: These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are Wrong
These 3 Common Arguments For Preserving the Electoral College Are Wrong
Ideas
The evolution of the Electoral College
Myth #1: Electors filter the passions of the people
Myth #2: Rural areas would get ignored
Myth #3: It creates a mandate to lead
A way out?
Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox.

Content: The Electoral College does not create a national campaign inclusive of rural areas. In fact, it does just the opposite. Myth #3: It creates a mandate to lead
Some have advocated continuation of the Electoral College because its winner-take-all nature at the state level causes the media and the public to see many close elections as landslides, thereby giving a stronger mandate to govern for the winning candidate. In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 51 percent of the national popular vote but 91 percent of the electoral vote, giving the impression of a landslide victory and allowing him to convince Congress to approve parts of his agenda. In 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton twice won comfortable majorities in the Electoral College while winning less than half of the national popular vote. ( In both years, third party candidate Ross Perot had run.) In 2016, Trump won by a large margin in the Electoral College, while winning fewer popular votes than Clinton nationwide. Nonetheless, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani announced that Trump’s Electoral College victory gives him a mandate to govern. Perhaps for incoming presidents, this artificial perception of landslide support is a good thing.