Monday’s entry at The Upshot solves a quandary. How do you introduce “both sides do it,” when you’re arguing against the statistics implicit in how the Electoral College is implemented. The answer? Like this.
Liberals say Mr. Trump’s victory is proof that the Electoral College is biased against big states and undemocratically marginalizes urban and nonwhite voters. Conservatives say the Electoral College serves as a necessary bulwark against big states, preventing California in particular from imposing “something like colonial rule over the rest of the nation,” as the conservative analyst Michael Barone put it. California sided with Mrs. Clinton by a vote margin of four million, or 30 percentage points.
Both sides have a point.
Both sides have a point … if you concede that "something like colonial rule" is also known as "democracy." Without the Electoral College, people in small states wouldn’t have three times the impact of those in large states and those people living in cities would actually have votes that count as much as people living in rural areas. Tyranny.