>The Electoral College is always a debate every election, with both parties and opinions flipping sides according to outcome.

i.e. they only ever criticize it when it doesn't work for them. Which is the point of the image. It's fine to change your opinions, but there's a difference between a slow and gradual reassessment, and going from "it's kind of alright" to "it's literally the devil". Between such a 180 and the dates which each article was published, it seems as if their opinion on the matter is entirely contingent on whether or not the system works for them.

And that's disingenuous.

(To bring a shred of defense for this-- and yeah, both of these articles exist as of the time I'm posting this-- they're penned by two different writers.)

I actually evolved my viewpoint the opposite direction. From "why does an abstract concept of a state have any weight in an election over people?" to "US is a place of many very different cultures; the fact that certain cultures have concentrated and large populations doesn't mean they should always outweigh other smaller cultures"