Posted on 11/09/2016 3:43:18 PM PST by smokingfrog
Reviewing the presidential election results, many commentators note that Donald Trump — like several previous Republican presidential candidates — prevailed in the electoral college without winning the popular vote. This is true, but it’s also irrelevant. It’s irrelevant legally, of course, because the Constitution provides for the election of a president through the electoral college. But it’s also irrelevant in terms of the democratic legitimacy of the result.
In the election concluded Tuesday, Hillary Clinton received more popular votes than Trump. This does not mean, however, that Clinton would necessarily have prevailed in an election that was determined solely by the popular vote. This is because the popular vote total is itself a product of the electoral college system. As a consequence, we do not know what the result would have been under a popular vote system, let alone whether Clinton would have prevailed.
The reason for this is because the electoral college system encourages the campaigns (and their surrogates and allies) to concentrate their efforts on swing states — those states in which the electoral votes are up for grabs — at the expense of those states in which one party or the other has no meaningful chance to prevail. The presidential campaigns make no meaningful effort to turn out votes in populous, but non-competitive states such as California, New York and Texas. There is no advantage to running up the score in a state that is solidly in one camp, nor is there much benefit in trying to drive up turnout in pursuit of a hopeless cause.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The way the Constitution was written, it seems like there was almost an expectation that many -- if not most -- presidential elections would be decided under the special Congressional election laid out in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution.
The key phrase is this:
... if no person received a majority, then the House could again choose one of the five with the greatest number of votes ...
This clearly indicates that there was an expectation that a potentially large number of candidates would be running in a presidential election, not just the two major party candidates that have become the norm.
I'd love to see someone track all those newly-enfranchised felons down, and then come back and report that 70% of them voted for Trump.
The Founding Fathers and the constitution are the gifts that keep on giving!
Good point. People who don't live in swing states assume that their votes don't matter so they may not vote.
The author also says that campaigns don't go out of their way to get votes in safe states or discourage votes from the other side in such states.
That's true, but in much of the country voters in deeply red or blue states may see the commercials broadcast to or from or for the swing states. There's a spill-over effect. It doesn't change the validity of his case, though.
LOL!
I believe him, because he was an older guy (I think he said he was 55), and served his time in the 1980’s.
Has anyone found the actual numbers? Most sites won’t even report that Trump hit 306 electoral votes. He may have won the popular vote by now.
Comrade Hellry and Owl Gore - forever linked together.
My understanding (and I may be wrong here) is that some states stop counting when the remaining ballots are not enough to affect the outcome. Hence, the actual popular vote can not be really known.
As has been correctly pointed out, because we operate under an Electoral system, a vote for Trump in a deep blue state like California or Massachusetts doesn't mean much so voters who might turn out for Trump under a pure popular vote system might not. So arguments about the raw vote totals are not germane as that's not the system being measured.
I’m surprised to hear a lib like Adler making this point. I’d expect him to gripe about it, rather than explain it.
I am sure you re correct because one of the founders, I forget which, said that political parties should be avoided as they would be the death of the democracy.
How right he was.
What amazing people they were.
re: There is no advantage to running up the score
The author doesn’t know Mike Madigan of IL.
"Ceterum censeo Hillary esse delendam."
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Trump 59,611,678 (47.5%)
<~~~Reptilliary 59,814,018 (47.66%)
Delta -202,340
Yeah, and I drank more beer than both Hillary and Trump last night, so I want to be President.”
Good on ya! Oh Happy Day, today.
Actually, all the votes are not in yet. Not all States have had their elections certified which means a number of states still have several hundred to count. Second, the MSM stopped tallying everything once Trump won. Notice on the Electoral Map that Trump is only at 286. MI has reported all votes and that would put him over 300.
The brilliance of the Founding Fathers is revealed or demonstrated often. I thank God whenever I think of their wisdom and foresight. This country was founded with the help of Divine Providence.
Stay the course and defend Liberty at all costs. It is what our God has planned.
We, the voting citizens, can’t even be sure that all absentee ballots are counted. The Military absentee votes are an example, not always counted.
Irrelevant and sour grapes. The “game” is played to win the most Electoral College votes, not the popular vote. If the rules were different, the game would be played differently.
As an example from another hotly-contested endeavor, look at the 2003 MLB World Series. As we all know, the MLB World Series winner is the first team that wins 4 games in a head-to-head series. In 2003, that was the Florida Marlins. If after the series, the losing Yankees followed the WaPo model, they’d be indignant, saying they should be the declared winner, because they scored more total runs and had more total hits.
Of course, you don’t change the rules after the fact - unless you’re a whiny Dem.
It is very apt.
California could have voted 100% Hillary, but in the end it is ONE state, with 55 EVs.
Problem for democrats is that there are 50 state "games" that determine the winner.
So, yep the Marlins could have won 4 games by a score of 1-0, hell make it even more ridiculous, like the Yankees making so many errors and hit by pitches, that the Marlins basically prevailed by incompetence.
It doesn't MATTER if the Yankees won three games by 50 to zero.
No baseball fan would complain.
Because those are the rules.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.