Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Electoral College’

The Danger of the Attacks on the Electoral College


Posted by  in Politics By Trent England, Director, Save our States

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 30, 2019, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

Once upon a time, the Electoral College was not controversial. During the debates over ratifying the Constitution, Anti-Federalist opponents of ratification barely mentioned it. But by the mid-twentieth century, opponents of the Electoral College nearly convinced Congress to propose an amendment to scrap it. And today, more than a dozen states have joined in an attempt to hijack the Electoral College as a way to force a national popular vote for president.

What changed along the way? And does it matter? After all, the critics of the Electoral College simply want to elect the president the way we elect most other officials. Every state governor is chosen by a statewide popular vote. Why not a national popular vote for president?

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 asked themselves the same question, but then rejected a national popular vote along with several other possible modes of presidential election. The Virginia Plan—the first draft of what would become the new Constitution­—called for “a National Executive . . . to be chosen by the National Legislature.” When the Constitutional Convention took up the issue for the first time, near the end of its first week of debate, Roger Sherman from Connecticut supported this parliamentary system of election, arguing that the national executive should be “absolutely dependent” on the legislature. Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, on the other hand, called for a popular election. Virginia’s George Mason thought a popular election “impracticable,” but hoped Wilson would “have time to digest it into his own form.” Another delegate suggested election by the Senate alone, and then the Convention adjourned for the day.

When they reconvened the next morning, Wilson had taken Mason’s advice. He presented a plan to create districts and hold popular elections to choose electors. Those electors would then vote for the executive—in other words, an electoral college. But with many details left out, and uncertainty remaining about the nature of the executive office, Wilson’s proposal was voted down. A week later, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed election by state governors. This too was voted down, and a consensus began to build. Delegates did not support the Virginia Plan’s parliamentary model because they understood that an executive selected by Congress would become subservient to Congress. A similar result, they came to see, could be expected from assigning the selection to any body of politicians.

There were other oddball proposals that sought to salvage congressional selection—for instance, to have congressmen draw lots to form a group that would then choose the executive in secret. But by July 25, it was clear to James Madison that the choice was down to two forms of popular election: “The option before us,” he said, “[is] between an appointment by Electors chosen by the people—and an immediate appointment by the people.” Madison said he preferred popular election, but he recognized two legitimate concerns. First, people would tend toward supporting candidates from their own states, giving an advantage to larger states. Second, a few areas with higher concentrations of voters might come to dominate. Madison spoke positively of the idea of an electoral college, finding that “there would be very little opportunity for cabal, or corruption” in such a system.

By August 31, the Constitution was nearly finished—except for the process of electing the president. The question was put to a committee comprised of one delegate from each of the eleven states present at the Convention. That committee, which included Madison, created the Electoral College as we know it today. They presented the plan on September 4, and it was adopted with minor changes. It is found in Article II, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

Federal officials were prohibited from being electors. Electors were required to cast two ballots, and were prohibited from casting both ballots for candidates from their own state. A deadlock for president would be decided by the House of Representatives, with one vote per state. Following that, in case of a deadlock for vice president, the Senate would decide. Also under the original system, the runner up became vice president.

This last provision caused misery for President John Adams in 1796, when his nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, became his vice president. Four years later it nearly robbed Jefferson of the presidency when his unscrupulous running mate, Aaron Burr, tried to parlay an accidental deadlock into his own election by the House. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, fixed all this by requiring electors to cast separate votes for president and vice president.

And there things stand, constitutionally at least. State legislatures have used their power to direct the manner of choosing electors in various ways: appointing them directly, holding elections by district, or holding statewide elections. Today, 48 states choose their presidential electors in a statewide, winner-take-all vote. Maine and Nebraska elect one elector based on each congressional district’s vote and the remaining two based on the statewide vote.

It is easy for Americans to forget that when we vote for president, we are really voting for electors who have pledged to support the candidate we favor. Civics education is not what it used to be. Also, perhaps, the Electoral College is a victim of its own success. Most of the time, it shapes American politics in ways that are beneficial but hard to see. Its effects become news only when a candidate and his or her political party lose a hard-fought and narrowly decided election.

So what are the beneficial effects of choosing our presidents through the Electoral College?

Under the Electoral College system, presidential elections are decentralized, taking place in the states. Although some see this as a flaw—U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren opposes the Electoral College expressly because she wants to increase federal power over elections—this decentralization has proven to be of great value.

For one thing, state boundaries serve a function analogous to that of watertight compartments on an ocean liner. Disputes over mistakes or fraud are contained within individual states. Illinois can recount its votes, for instance, without triggering a nationwide recount. This was an important factor in America’s messiest presidential election—which was not in 2000, but in 1876.

That year marked the first time a presidential candidate won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. It was a time of organized suppression of black voters in the South, and there were fierce disputes over vote totals in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Each of those states sent Congress two sets of electoral vote totals, one favoring Republican Rutherford Hayes and the other Democrat Samuel Tilden. Just two days before Inauguration Day, Congress finished counting the votes—which included determining which votes to count—and declared Hayes the winner. Democrats proclaimed this “the fraud of the century,” and there is no way to be certain today—nor was there probably a way to be certain at the time—which candidate actually won. At the very least, the Electoral College contained these disputes within individual states so that Congress could endeavor to sort it out. And it is arguable that the Electoral College prevented a fraudulent result.

Four years later, the 1880 presidential election demonstrated another benefit of the Electoral College system: it can act to amplify the results of a presidential election. The popular vote margin that year was less than 10,000 votes—about one-tenth of one percent—yet Republican James Garfield won a resounding electoral victory, with 214 electoral votes to Democrat Winfield Hancock’s 155. There was no question who won, let alone any need for a recount. More recently, in 1992, the Electoral College boosted the legitimacy of Democrat Bill Clinton, who won with only 43 percent of the popular vote but received over 68 percent of the electoral vote.

But there is no doubt that the greatest benefit of the Electoral College is the powerful incentive it creates against regionalism. Here, the presidential elections of 1888 and 1892 are most instructive. In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost reelection despite receiving a popular vote plurality. He won this plurality because he won by very large margins in the overwhelmingly Democratic South. He won Texas alone by 146,461 votes, for instance, whereas his national popular vote margin was only 94,530. Altogether he won in six southern states with margins greater than 30 percent, while only tiny Vermont delivered a victory percentage of that size for Republican Benjamin Harrison.

In other words, the Electoral College ensures that winning supermajorities in one region of the country is not sufficient to win the White House. After the Civil War, and especially after the end of Reconstruction, that meant that the Democratic Party had to appeal to interests outside the South to earn a majority in the Electoral College. And indeed, when Grover Cleveland ran again for president four years later in 1892, although he won by a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he won a resounding Electoral College majority by picking up New York, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and California in addition to winning the South.

Whether we see it or not today, the Electoral College continues to push parties and presidential candidates to build broad coalitions. Critics say that swing states get too much attention, leaving voters in so-called safe states feeling left out. But the legitimacy of a political party rests on all of those safe states—on places that the party has already won over, allowing it to reach farther out. In 2000, for instance, George W. Bush needed every state that he won—not just Florida—to become president. Of course, the Electoral College does put a premium on the states in which the parties are most evenly divided. But would it really be better if the path to the presidency primarily meant driving up the vote total in the deepest red or deepest blue states?

Also, swing states are the states most likely to have divided government. And if divided government is good for anything, it is accountability. So with the Electoral College system, when we do wind up with a razor-thin margin in an election, it is likely to happen in a state where both parties hold some power, rather than in a state controlled by one party.

Despite these benefits of the current system, opponents of the Electoral College maintain that it is unseemly for a candidate to win without receiving the most popular votes. As Hillary Clinton put it in 2000: “In a democracy, we should respect the will of the people, and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College.” Yet similar systems prevail around the world. In parliamentary systems, including Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, prime ministers are elected by the legislature. This happens in Germany and India as well, which also have presidents who are elected by something similar to an electoral college. In none of these democratic systems is the national popular vote decisive.

More to the point, in our own political tradition, what matters most about every legislative body, from our state legislatures to the House of Representatives and the Senate, is which party holds the majority. That party elects the leadership and sets the agenda. In none of these representative chambers does the aggregate popular vote determine who is in charge. What matters is winning districts or states.

Nevertheless, there is a clamor of voices calling for an end to the Electoral College. Former Attorney General Eric Holder has declared it “a vestige of the past,” and Washington Governor Jay Inslee has labeled it an “archaic relic of a bygone age.” Almost as one, the current myriad of Democratic presidential hopefuls have called for abolishing the Electoral College.

Few if any of these Democrats likely realize how similar their party’s position is to what it was in the late nineteenth century, with California representing today what the South was for their forebears. The Golden State accounted for 10.4 percent of presidential votes cast in 2016, while the southern states (from South Carolina down to Florida and across to Texas) accounted for 10.6 percent of presidential votes cast in 1888. Grover Cleveland won those southern states by nearly 39 percent, while Hillary Clinton won California by 30 percent. But rather than following Cleveland’s example of building a broader national coalition that could win in the Electoral College, today’s Democrats would rather simply change the rules.

Anti-Electoral College amendments with bipartisan support in the 1950s and 1970s failed to receive the two-thirds votes in Congress they needed in order to be sent to the states for consideration. Likewise today, partisan amendments will not make it through Congress. Nor, if they did, could they win ratification among the states.

But there is a serious threat to the Electoral College. Until recently, it has gone mostly unnoticed, as it has made its way through various state legislatures. If it works according to its supporters’ intent, it would nullify the Electoral College by creating a de facto direct election for president.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, takes advantage of the flexibility granted to state legislatures in the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The original intent of this was to allow state legislators to determine how best to represent their state in presidential elections. The electors represent the state—not just the legislature—even though the latter has power to direct the manner of appointment. By contrast, NPV supporters argue that this power allows state legislatures to ignore their state’s voters and appoint electors based on the national popular vote. This is what the compact would require states to do.

Of course, no state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a “trigger”: it only takes effect if adopted by enough states to control 270 electoral votes—in other words, a majority that would control the outcome of presidential elections. So far, 14 states and the District of Columbia have signed on, with a total of 189 electoral votes.

Until this year, every state that had joined NPV was heavily Democratic: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The NPV campaign has struggled to win other Democratic states: Delaware only adopted it this year and it still has not passed in Oregon (though it may soon). Following the 2018 election, Democrats came into control of both the legislatures and the governorships in the purple states of Colorado and New Mexico, which have subsequently joined NPV.

NPV would have the same effect as abolishing the Electoral College. Fraud in one state would affect every state, and the only way to deal with it would be to give more power to the federal government. Elections that are especially close would require nationwide recounts. Candidates could win based on intense support from a narrow region or from big cities. NPV also carries its own unique risks: despite its name, the plan cannot actually create a national popular vote. Each state would still—at least for the time being—run its own elections. This means a patchwork of rules for everything from which candidates are on the ballot to how disputes are settled. NPV would also reward states with lax election laws—the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state. Finally, each NPV state would certify its own “national” vote total. But what would happen when there are charges of skullduggery? Would states really trust, with no power to verify, other state’s returns?

Uncertainty and litigation would likely follow. In fact, NPV is probably unconstitutional. For one thing, it ignores the Article I, Section 10 requirement that interstate compacts receive congressional consent. There is also the fact that the structure of the Electoral College clause of the Constitution implies there is some limit on the power of state legislatures to ignore the will of their state’s people.

One danger of all these attacks on the Electoral College is, of course, that we lose the state-by-state system designed by the Framers and its protections against regionalism and fraud. This would alter our politics in some obvious ways—shifting power toward urban centers, for example—but also in ways we cannot know in advance. Would an increase in presidents who win by small pluralities lead to a rise of splinter parties and spoiler candidates? Would fears of election fraud in places like Chicago and Broward County lead to demands for greater federal control over elections?

The more fundamental danger is that these attacks undermine the Constitution as a whole. Arguments that the Constitution is outmoded and that democracy is an end in itself are arguments that can just as easily be turned against any of the constitutional checks and balances that have preserved free government in America for well over two centuries. The measure of our fundamental law is not whether it actualizes the general will—that was the point of the French Revolution, not the American. The measure of our Constitution is whether it is effective at encouraging just, stable, and free government—government that protects the rights of its citizens.

The Electoral College is effective at doing this. We need to preserve it, and we need to help our fellow Americans understand why it matters.

[This post originally appeared on Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College]

Gallery

A Timely Review


Blue States Band Together in Open Attack on Constitution: Aim To Completely Destroy Electoral College


Reported By Benjamin Arie | Published March 4, 2019 at 2:39pm  | Modified March 5, 2019 at 9:20am

Voices should be heard even if they aren’t able to scream the loudest.

Liberals claim to believe in “equality” and standing up for the “little guy” in the face of bullies, but a movement gaining steam in blue states is putting that in doubt. Frustrated that they didn’t win in 2016, the left has a new plan: Sidestep the Constitution and effectively get rid of the Electoral College.

Colorado is the latest state to jump on board. Last week, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis announced that he would sign a bill which basically re-writes the electoral process, and could pave the way to letting big cities dominate every future presidential election.

The liberal called the Electoral College an “undemocratic relic,” apparently believing that he knows better than the Founding Fathers. “I’ve long supported electing the president by who gets the most votes,” Polis declared on Feb. 24, according to The Hill.

That plan would force Colorado’s electors — the people who actually cast the official votes for president — to side with whichever candidate wins the national popular vote, no matter what. By changing the regulations at the state level but still using puppet electors, liberals would avoid amending the Constitution to get their way.

“It’s a way to move towards direct election of the president,” Polis said.

At first glance, it’s no big deal. Democracy means that people vote and the person with the most votes wins, right?

The problem, of course, is that America was founded as a republic for reason — and it’s quickly evident just how dangerous it could be to bypass the Electoral College.

The United States is a huge and diverse country. The whims and demands of voters in Manhattan are drastically different from the concerns of rural farmers in Iowa — yet the voices of those smaller locations are just as important, especially when you realize that huge percentages of our food and supplies come from the heartland.

The entire purpose of having state and local governments is that a far-off central government can’t bully the rest of the country, but that’s exactly what would happen if the Electoral College were abandoned.

A presidential candidate would only need to win a handful of big cities such as New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, completely ignoring the concerns of the interior of the vast nation. The voices of millions of Americans who live outside of coastal population centers would be ignored.

Ironically, the plan could also mean that the votes of Colorado’s own citizens don’t really count, because they would be negated if they don’t match the whims of the popular vote. As one Colorado county commissioner rightly pointed out, “we do not support the National Popular Vote, which allows California and New York to decide Colorado’s votes for President.”

But the Rocky Mountain State isn’t alone. An eye-opening number of other states are joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, all moving toward similar legislation.

“The states making up the compact, which already includes New York, Illinois and all the New England states except for New Hampshire, would commit to awarding their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the results in the Electoral College,”  The Hill explained.

That Interstate Compact is not likely to have enough support to make a difference in the 2020 election, but it could play a major role in subsequent votes unless conservatives stand up and stop it. The United States of America was founded on the separation of power, not a no-holds-barred popularity contest.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch,” it’s been said.

Exactly right.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Benjamin Arie is an independent journalist and writer. He has personally covered everything ranging from local crime to the U.S. president as a reporter in Michigan, before focusing on national politics. Ben frequently travels to Latin America and has spent years living in Mexico. Follow Benjamin on Facebook

Set Your Liberal Friends Hair onFire With These Facts


Chilling Rush Prediction: The Left Will Try To Stop Elections Before All’s Said & Done


Reported By Cillian Zeal | July 16, 2018 at 11:26am

Free and fair elections have always been a hallmark of American democracy. But will they always be? Rush Limbaugh thinks there’s a very good chance they won’t.

Rush was answering a caller to the show last week who said that the media didn’t understand why Republican voters would stick by President Donald Trump, particularly given his nomination of federal Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

“I think you’re right — and the media, of course, is missing it,” Limbaugh said. “The media thinks the exact opposite is happening. They think … Like CNN today spent the whole morning bashing Trump as somebody out of place, and doesn’t know what he’s doing, embarrassing the United States on the world stage at NATO, and they think Trump voters are gonna see it the same way and start regretting the way they voted for Trump.

“These people have no idea,” he continued. “It’s amazing to me — and you’re right about this. It’s amazing just from a professional standpoint.

“If you’re a political consultant, political professional at all, and you’re on the losing side of an election that you thought you were gonna win in a landslide, it would seem to me that the first thing that you would want to do is find out who it is that beat you,” Limbaugh said. “’Who are these people that voted for Trump, and how did we miss ’em? How did this happen? Why did our polling not show that Trump was this popular?’

“They haven’t done that at all. They’ve made no effort to understand the Trump voter in whatever state.

“They have made no effort to understand why they can’t break this bond that exists between Trump and his voters. They continue to condescend to these people. They continue. Either on MSNBC or CNN or in the pages of The New York Times or Washington Post, they continue to mock them, make fun of them, provoke them, insult them, what have you. All the while doing news stories in such a way that they really believe that they’re going to separate Trump’s voters from Trump.”

Limbaugh said to the left (and the anti-Trump right), it comes down to “ways have to be found to beat them and overcome them, but not persuade them and talk them, you know, into abandoning Trump. Well, I don’t know, but that just doesn’t seem to make much sense in the world of politics.

“I’ll tell you, folks, I’ve made this prediction once. I’m gonna make it again here. It’s a long, long-term prediction. This is nothing rooted in any particular conspiracy theory I’ve heard, because I don’t ascribe to those. But it is becoming clear … It’s becoming clear to the left that the only thing standing in their way now is elections.”

Limbaugh went on to describe a show on CBS (I’m pretty sure he’s referring to “The Good Fight”) in which a character played by Margo Martindale illustrates his point.

“She was telling everybody about, ‘we have to win 2018. We have to win. We have to win. We have to.’ Now, obviously that’s a mantra. But the way she said it, it made me realize: One of these days these people are gonna realize that the only thing stopping them here is elections.

“If they can find a way around that, then they don’t need to worry about appealing to people or getting out the vote or coming up with ways to convince people to vote,” he continued. “If you look at the way the radical left is going with this intolerant bullying and intimidation of anybody who disagrees with ’em, and the desire to stop any expression of any alternative view or way of thinking?

“But I’m telling you that they’re gonna start thinking this way, because in their perverted worldview, the biggest problem they have right now is they’re losing elections. And their way of thinking is, ‘Well, we got a get rid of elections then.’ If elections are the problem, rather than figuring how to win ’em since that’s becoming problematic for ’em, ‘We just gotta find a way to get rid of ’em.’”

Limbaugh said that you could “(g)o ahead and laugh. Tell everybody I said that someday the left is gonna conclude that elections are the problem, but I’m telling you what. What do you think open borders, mass amnesty is about?

“If American citizens won’t vote for you, then make sure a bunch of people get into the country who will. Don’t doubt me on this, folks. These people have such an entitlement and quest for power that leaving it up to public opinion among a bunch of dolts and uninformed, uneducated hicks?

“That’s not gonna happen,” he concluded. “That’s not gonna be allowed to happen for very long.”

Will this happen? Not tomorrow, and Rush certainly doesn’t believe it’s coming soon. But when the ends justify the means, and when the ends involve winning at all costs, why bother with elections?

And when you think they won’t change the way the game works, just look at the move regarding the Electoral College when they couldn’t win that.

Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad. He became a staunch right-winger at the age of three: While watching a clip of Ronald Reagan, he told his mother (to her great horror), “Mom, I’m a Republican.” Except for a brief, scarring and inexplicable late high-school dalliance with Ralph Nader and his ilk, he’s never looked back. Aside from politics, he enjoys spending time with his wife, literature (especially British comic novels and modern Japanese lit), indie rock, coffee, Formula One, and football (of both American and world varieties). He is the proud owner of a very lazy West Highland white terrier and an extraordinary troublesome poodle mix of indeterminate provenance.

Majority Rule Equals Tyranny


waving flagCommentary by  Walter Williams | 

URL of the original posting site: http://humanevents.com/2016/12/07/majority-rule-equals-tyranny/

It is alleged that Hillary Clinton won a popular vote majority. Therefore, if the nation were not burdened with the antiquated Electoral College, anguished and freaked-out Americans whine, she, instead of Donald Trump, would be the next president of the United States. You say, “Hold it. Before you go further, Williams, what do you mean it is alleged that Clinton received most of the popular vote? It’s a fact.” I say “alleged” because according to Gregg Phillips of True the Vote, an estimated 3 million noncitizens voted. Presumably, those votes went to Clinton.

In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote just as Hillary Clinton allegedly did. Such outcomes have led to calls to abandon the Constitution’s Article 2 provision for the state electors to select presidents. Despite the fact that the system has served us well for over 200 years, many Americans now call for its abandonment in favor of electing presidents by popular vote. Before we abandon the Electoral College, let’s consider the function it performs.

According to 2013 census data, nine states — California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia and Michigan — have populations that total roughly 160 million, slightly more than half the U.S. population. It is conceivable that just nine states could determine the presidency in a popular vote. The Electoral College gives states with small populations a measure of protection against domination by states with large populations. It levels the political playing field a bit. For example, California is our most populous state, with about 39 million people. Wyoming is our least populated state, with about 600,000 people. California’s population is about 66 times larger than Wyoming’s. California has 55 electoral votes, and Wyoming has three. Thus, in terms of electoral votes, California’s influence is only 18 times that of Wyoming. Even though our nine high-population states have a total of 241 electoral votes, a candidate needs 270 to win the presidency. That forces presidential candidates to campaign in thinly populated states and respect the wishes of the people there.

mob-rule-tyrannyThe Founding Fathers held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison wrote, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” John Adams predicted, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”democracy-mob-rule

Throughout our Constitution are impediments to the tyranny of majority rule. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed, which requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and enacted, which requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule.

Despite a public consensus on the issue — resulting from miseducation — there’s nothing just or fair about majority rule. In fact, one of the primary dangers of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy and respectability to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Think about it. How many decisions in your life would you like made through majority rule? What about what car we purchase, where we live and whether we should have ham or turkey for Thanksgiving dinner? I am sure you would deem it tyranny if these decisions were made by a majority vote.republic-if-you-can-keep-it

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

WHY WE HAVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Hillary’s Popular Vote Came From ONE State


waving flagPosted on December 18, 2016

clinton-aloneAs much as we don’t want to admit it, Hillary did win 2.8 million more votes than Trump. But when you break down those votes, it’s clear to see why we have the Electoral College. All those votes were contained in one state. ONE STATE. If we decided elections based on popular vote, we would have the president California wants. All. The. Time. Maybe now liberals will understand the importance of the Electoral College…..probably not, though.

Hillary’s margin of victory in that state was 4.3 million votes – or 61.5 percent

And therein lies the rub.

The purpose of the Electoral College is to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.

California is now a one-party state. There were zero Republicans running for statewide office and no GOP candidates in nine of California’s congressional districts. At the state level, Investor’s Business Daily reports, six districts had no Republicans for the state senate and 16 districts had no Republicans for the state assembly.

Clinton was going to win California’s 55 electoral votes, so Trump didn’t campaign there. If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million.

Here’s the real break down:

Number of states won:

Trump: 30

Clinton: 20

_________________

Trump: +10

 

Number of electoral votes won:

Trump: 306

Clinton: 232

_________________

Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:

Trump: 56%

Clinton: 53.5%

_________________

Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:

Trump: 62,958,211

Clinton: 65,818,318

_________________

Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:

Trump: 58,474,401

Clinton: 57,064,530

_________________

Trump: + 1.4 million

Picture5

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: