New York Times Heartbroken: Latin America Refuses to Keep Propping Up Castro's Eternal...
Seth Dillon DROPS Iranian-Sympathizing Nutball Tucker Carlson for Claiming He Tried Bribin...
LH Grey Goes OFF on Toads Who Doxxed Cynical Publius in Maybe the...
Who Wants to Tell Her? Dem Rep Shakes Her Fist at Trump REFUSING...
WATCH Cory Booker's Face As Jake Tapper Pushes Back on His Lie About...
So ... What's Going on Between Chris Murphy and Iran?
Law Professor Completely NUKING AOC and Her 'I'm Devastated' Post About MI Synagogue...
TX Democrat Wack-Job FAFOs Hard After Peddling Insane 'Married Friend' Sob Story to...
Sit TF Down: VA Democrat Uses ROTC Cadets Who Stopped ODU Terror Attack...
Susan Abulhawa Rages at Mayor Mamdani for Throwing Her Under Bus — After...
Eat the Rich? Nah—AOC Just Hired the Rich's Makeup Artists with Donor Dollars
The Gettysburg Undress: Leftist Mayor of Historic PA Town Has Been Charged With...
Reporter Does Actual Journalism on Citizen Who Was 'Detained by ICE' for Two...
Sen. Mark Kelly (Almost) Catches Pete Hegseth Giving an Illegal Order
Gothamist: Mamdani Comforts NYC Muslims After Islamophobic Attacks

HAHAHAHA -- (takes breath) -- HAHAHAHA: New York Times issues embarrassing correction on the Electoral College

This is pretty funny.

The New York Times called for an end to the Electoral College in an editorial on December 19, calling it a “living symbol of America’s original sin.” But the paper was forced to issue an embarrassing correction when the editors all of a sudden remembered that they used to support the Electoral College. Even worse for the Times? That support came in 2000 when another Republican president lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College:

Advertisement
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.

Whoops!

The 2000 editorial was titled, “The Case for the Electoral College” and the editors argued that, “The Electoral College 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 Times ended the editorial with:

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.

So, what’s changed?

***

 

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement