2016 results put new focus on Electoral College

[webfact]

2016 results put new focus on Electoral College

By NANCY BENAC

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The fact that Hillary Clinton most likely won the U.S. popular vote but won't be president has some people wondering, "Wait, why do we do it this way?"

 

Thank — or blame — the Founding Fathers for creating the possibility of a so-called "divergent election" when they set up the Electoral College.

 

A look at how and why the U.S. selects its presidents this way:

___

ORIGINS

The Electoral College was devised at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was a compromise meant to strike a balance between those who wanted popular elections for president and those who wanted no public input. Alexander Hamilton wrote, "If the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent."

 

At the time, the country had just 13 states, and the founders were worried about one state exercising outsized influence, according to a white paper from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Small states were worried that states with large populations would have extra sway. Southern states with slaves who couldn't vote worried that Northern states would have a louder voice. There were concerns that people in one state wouldn't know much about candidates from other states. The logistics of a national election were daunting. The thinking was that if candidates had to win multiple states rather than just the popular vote, they would have to attract broader support.

___

HOW IT WORKS

The electoral system has been tweaked over the years, but the gist endures. The president is selected by a "college" of 538 electors from the states. Each state gets as many electoral votes as it has members of Congress, and the District of Columbia gets three. To be elected president, the winner must get at least half the total plus one — or 270 electoral votes. Most states give all their electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the state's popular vote. So while Clinton is leading Trump in votes nationwide 47.7 percent to 47.5 percent, Trump's total in the Electoral College stands at 279, with races in Michigan, New Hampshire and Arizona yet to be called. In 2000, Democrat Al Gore narrowly won the popular vote but lost to Republican George W. Bush in the Electoral College 271-266. Overall, there have been four such cases of divergent elections.

___

THE PROS

A lot has changed since the Electoral College system was established, making many of the original reasons for its existence outdated: The U.S. now manages to run national elections quite well. Voters nationwide have no shortage of information about candidates. Slavery no longer exists. But there are still concerns that small states and rural areas would be ignored in favor of those with bigger populations if the race hinged strictly on the popular vote.

___

THE CONS

In 1967, a commission of the American Bar Association recommended that the Electoral College system be scrapped, finding it to be "archaic, undemocratic, complex, ambiguous and dangerous." Fifty years later, critics are still complaining, arguing that the system results in huge swaths of the country being ignored while candidates focus on a dozen or so battleground states.

 

"It's a terrible system," says George C. Edwards III, a Texas A&M professor who's written a book on the subject. Edwards tracks every campaign stop by the major candidates, and he says big states that are sure to vote for one candidate or another — say, California for the Democrats or Texas for the Republicans — now get completely ignored, and small states largely get overlooked, too.

___

IS CHANGE AFOOT?

Don't count on it. Republicans have benefited the most from the system in recent years, and they're in control of Congress. However, there is an effort underway to get around the winner-take-all aspects of the system without abolishing the Electoral College.

 

A group called National Popular Vote is pushing an interstate compact under which states would pledge to deliver all their electoral votes to the nationwide winner of the popular vote. Over the past decade, 11 states have approved such a bill.

 

John Koza, chairman of the group, is quick to point out that both Trump and Clinton are on record in recent years saying the system is flawed. He's hopeful Trump's election won't make Republicans less amenable to changing it.

 

"We're talking about a policy change that's largely dictated by the need to create a 50-state campaign for president instead of a 12-state campaign for president," says Koza.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-11

[optad]

Focus should be on the super delegates in the democrat party. That is where Trump won this election.

[Jingthing]

trump legitimately won the national election.

Both candidates knew the electoral college rules going in and campaigned accordingly using the best tactics they could as far as picking which states to focus attention on. 

But trump's CON MAN hard core sales tactics worked, even though he was the biggest liar in a campaign in U.S. history.

It's a shame there are so many American suckers out there, but it happened.

However, as Hillary Clinton did win the POPULAR VOTE, it can't be stressed often enough ... trump did NOT receive a mandate to govern. He won the job. He did not win a MANDATE. 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Jingthing

[optad]

^^You cannot change the rules after the fact. You are bleating all over the forum with zero point to make. The populist vote is an inconsequential determiner, and you know it.

 

Grow a pair.

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, optad said:

^^You cannot change the rules after the fact. You are bleating all over the forum with zero point to make. The populist vote is an inconsequential determiner, and you know it.

 

Grow a pair.

Not saying change the rules.

Saying accept the reality that trump's win was not even close to a mandate.

Leave me balls out of it.

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Jingthing

[Luckysilk]

Popular vote means squat, the powers that be have made it irrelevant. 

The Democrat and Republican party leaders will never ever change to a proportional system. They'd lose too many seats to third parties, Libertarians and Greens and anyone else who wants to starts a party.

 

Those who carry on about the popular vote are DELUSIONAL - get over it.

 

[Dtrump]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Not saying change the rules.

Saying accept the reality that trump's win was not even close to a mandate.

Leave me balls out of it.

 

 

[bassman]

This pipe dream to change the presidential election to a popular vote is raised every time the Democrat losers squeal.  As it takes 2/3 of states to ratify a constitutional amendment, don't think the "flyover" states will ever give up their state rights.  Particularly when both east and west coast states are run and supported by socialist morons that would rather see a country run by their appointed anointed technocrats and not the people.

 

All need to remember the intent of the constitution which is an agreement between states and a system that is federalist and so it shall remain.

[newnative]

       One of the reasons for the Electoral College was to serve as a check against the wishes of the voters.  If the voters elected someone deemed to be not qualified to serve as President, the electors could overrule the voters and vote for someone else.  That is why you have actual human electors who actually vote instead of an automatic system that automatically awards a state to the candidate that gets the most votes in the state.  The electors have the power to vote for any candidate they want.  Some states have a small penalty if they do this but they still have the power to do it.  Obviously, this reason for the Electoral College has long since lost any use, if it ever had any.  If there ever was an election that called for the electors to step in and overrule what many consider an unqualified candidate for President it would be this one--but the electors will likely not step out of line. 

        So, with this reason for the EC now mute, the only other argument is the EC protects and empowers the smaller states.  I would argue that the smaller states are already protected by their Congressional representation and the EC does not really do anything for them, anyway.  The EC is not protecting or giving power to Wyoming or any other low population state.   Instead, we have elections where the candidates only focus on the 'swing' states and all the other states are largely ignored.  Not good.  Also not good is the fact that the EC often gives the false sense of a landslide when no landslide is actually there.  I was reading some Yahoo posts and one of them referred to Trump's victory as a 'landslide' because he 'won' a larger number of states than Hillary.  You know you have a bad system when someone can think a candidate won in a landslide when he actually got FEWER votes.  I really hate that we lost out on a President Gore and got the horrible Bush instead because of the EC.  And, now again, we are getting a President that the majority of the voters voted against--at least with the current count.  In a democracy it should always be the candidate who gets the most votes wins.  Pretty darn simple.  Ridiculous that it is not that way in America, of all places.

[mania]

2 hours ago, Dtrump said:

 

 

Your graph clearly shows who the usual cons are here in these threads

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, Dtrump said:

 

 

Very interesting but the rules were established in advance.

 

Trump won because of reasons similar to Brexit. A majority wanted change no matter what. That in itself stems from huge inequality. If you are comfortable, go with the status quo. If you are being left behind, not sharing in prosperity you will go for change. I think Trumps misogyny and Clintons emails were irrelevant.

[mania]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

 

Very interesting but the rules were established in advance.

 

Trump won because of reasons similar to Brexit. A majority wanted change no matter what. That in itself stems from huge inequality. If you are comfortable, go with the status quo. If you are being left behind, not sharing in prosperity you will go for change. I think Trumps misogyny and Clintons emails were irrelevant.

 

yes we wanted change....but none I know wanted change because as you say they were being left behind.

 

We wanted change same as we wanted it 8 years ago.....and we're promised it by the greatest false hope of this century.

 

We wanted less dead bodies of innocent women & children in foreign countries we had no business in killed by our unmanned drones then called collateral damages.

Instead we got way way more

 

We wanted the right to chose our own damn health plan from companies allowed to compete freely across state lines

Instead we got that sorry excuse Of a health plan & now cannot even get into a doctor regardless of our offer of $$$$

 

We wanted an end to the madness  of printing 80 billion USD per month then buying the IOU's with more of this funny money ever devaluing our once strong currency.

 

There is more....much more , but I have a feeling for many it is simpler to just say we are dumb farmers/ white guys/whatever that flat out wanted change....yes of course we wanted change....but not for the reason of being left behind as you say

[newnative]

Actually, Grouse, you are incorrect when you state that 'the majority wanted change'. The majority of the actual voters did not vote for change, at least not the change put forth by Trump.  As of today, Hillary is about 200,000 votes ahead of Trump.  The majority voted for the Democrat candidate and the Democrat platform.

[rapom]

I lived in mid-Missouri in a county that have been mostly democratic voters in past elections. Last night, I checked the voting results published in the local newspaper, from my county of residence in the states. The voters supported Trump at almost  3-1 over Clinton, with over a 65% voter turnout. They also elected a Republican Governor, a former Navy Seal, who had never held a public office, 2-1 over a 20-year veteran Democratic politician that campaigned on his record. Only one Democratic US Senator did not meet defeat in his re-election. The voters rejected all but one other Democratic candidate. The results from the bordering 5 counties, had almost the same ratio. I think these election results are a good example of how most American's feel that the system needed to be changed.  

[zaphod reborn]

Although Trump doesn't respect the Constitution, or the US electoral system, he deserves the EC vote on December 19.  He won the Democratic blue-collar stronghold states of Michigan and Pennsylvania.  If Hillary couldn't hold those, she deserved to lose, no matter if the west coast and northeast pushed her over the top in the popular vote.  I have more faith in the founding fathers than any politician living in America.  The electoral system must endure.

[Enoon]

Athens is usually quoted a the birthplace of democracy, and many hold it as an example in their demands for "Democracy".

 

"Participation was not open to all residents: to vote one had to be an adult, male citizen who owned land and was not a slave, and the number of these "varied between 30,000 and 50,000 out of a total population of around 250,000 to 300,000."

Athenian democracy - Wikipedia

 

Think on.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Enoon

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, mania said:

 

yes we wanted change....but none I know wanted change because as you say they were being left behind.

 

We wanted change same as we wanted it 8 years ago.....and we're promised it by the greatest false hope of this century.

 

We wanted less dead bodies of innocent women & children in foreign countries we had no business in killed by our unmanned drones then called collateral damages.

Instead we got way way more

 

We wanted the right to chose our own damn health plan from companies allowed to compete freely across state lines

Instead we got that sorry excuse Of a health plan & now cannot even get into a doctor regardless of our offer of $$$$

 

We wanted an end to the madness  of printing 80 billion USD per month then buying the IOU's with more of this funny money ever devaluing our once strong currency.

 

There is more....much more , but I have a feeling for many it is simpler to just say we are dumb farmers/ white guys/whatever that flat out wanted change....yes of course we wanted change....but not for the reason of being left behind as you say

So the northern rust belt was irrelevant? 

 

You Our see how Trump is going to relax regs on banks?

 

You think there will be reduced militarism under Trump?

 

Ill stick with my analysis if that's OK

 

 

[mania]

28 minutes ago, Grouse said:

So the northern rust belt was irrelevant? 

 

You Our see how Trump is going to relax regs on banks?

 

You think there will be reduced militarism under Trump?

 

Ill stick with my analysis if that's OK

 

 

 

Me?  I will stick with reality knowing the train wreck of the last 8 years is over.

 

Analysis of the new yet not even taken office President? I am hoping for better

than the last ........sure it is ok to keep yours 

[Grouse]

56 minutes ago, mania said:

 

Me?  I will stick with reality knowing the train wreck of the last 8 years is over.

 

Analysis of the new yet not even taken office President? I am hoping for better

than the last ........sure it is ok to keep yours 

I'm encouraged by Trumps plans to encourage corps to repatriate funds and to encourage investment with 100% write downs in year 1!

[mania]

8 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I'm encouraged by Trumps plans to encourage corps to repatriate funds and to encourage investment with 100% write downs in year 1!

 

When  many computer component  companies were moving offshore...I always wondered why some States did not entice them with X amount of years no state tax etc...

 

In exchange they would get a large corporation moving into State needing services etc etc etc

[Ulic]

Not really sure if the popular vote has any real meaning in the Electoral college voting system. Many Republicans in New York and California may not vote because these states are Blue. The same can be said for Democrats in Red states. The electoral college system is what they use in the USA. If they want to increase voter participation they should go to direct voting then every vote will count. I would think swing states tend to have higher voter participation than safe states but I am not really sure.

[lannarebirth]

On 11/10/2016 at 4:36 PM, Jingthing said:

trump legitimately won the national election.

Both candidates knew the electoral college rules going in and campaigned accordingly using the best tactics they could as far as picking which states to focus attention on. 

But trump's CON MAN hard core sales tactics worked, even though he was the biggest liar in a campaign in U.S. history.

It's a shame there are so many American suckers out there, but it happened.

However, as Hillary Clinton did win the POPULAR VOTE, it can't be stressed often enough ... trump did NOT receive a mandate to govern. He won the job. He did not win a MANDATE. 

 

Now I've got a hunch Trump is going to blow himself up at some point but I doubt it will be because his supporters turn on him because he told a lie. I think Peter Theil got it right when he said "his supporters take him seriously but not literally while the press takes him literally but not seriously". I'm sure members of the press already regret their error in judgement, I hope his supporters never do.