The New York Times was obligated to issue an embarrassing correction of its own history on the Electoral College.
After labeling the “antiquated mechanism” a “living symbol of America’s original sin” in a Dec. 19 editorial calling for the end of the Electoral College system, the publication made a discovery.
— 63red (@63red) December 21, 2016
Not only did the editors forget that they used to be in favor of the Electoral College, they buried the memory of the 2000 election when a different Republican president won enough electoral votes while losing the popular vote.
This is why the Grey Lady is renting spacehttps://t.co/XE7ZcAJqXM
— @Girl_Grimly?Gab.ai (@ed_grimly) December 21, 2016
The Times issued this red-faced correction the next day:
Correction: December 20, 2016
An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that the editorial board has been opposed to the Electoral College going back 80 years. It failed to note an exception: in 2000, the board defended the college after the election of George W. Bush.
A few elections ago, the editorial board at the Times had issued “The Case for the Electoral College,” arguing that it was “first and foremost a compact among states, large and small, designed to ensure that one state or one region did not dominate the others.”
The editorial defended the many “benefits” of the system and concluded:
“The system has survived earlier instances in which the winner of the popular vote was denied the presidency. Wise voters and legislators will want to make sure that it survives this one as well.”
Seems the Times forgot their own advice.
Wake up right! Receive our free morning news blast HERE
- 52 passengers boarded plane with neg Covid results, test positive after landing in Hong Kong - April 26, 2021
- Supreme Court agrees to hear major gun rights case on concealed handguns - April 26, 2021
- Final Census data shows the blue states likely to lose House seats, and the red states picking them up - April 26, 2021