EMOPALOOZA 2.0: Electoral CollegePosted: December 19, 2016
The Founding Fathers got it right, and California is proof.
Consider this: Hillary Clinton’s 2.3-million-popular-vote plurality over Trump depends on the votes in a single state.
James E. Campbell writes: Shocked and appalled by the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency, some supporters of Hillary Clinton have turned to minimizing and even delegitimizing Trump’s election. In an era of severe political polarization, in an election with two candidates seen from the outset in highly unfavorable terms, after the most brutal campaign in modern history, and with an outcome that astonished just about everyone, these reactions are understandable, but wrong.
Many diehard Clinton supporters cannot bring themselves to believe their candidate could lose to Donald Trump. They think: How could such a crude and inept con man be elected president? Even after it has happened, it is unthinkable, a nightmare. So, the election must not have been fair.
Those on the fringe raise the specter of diabolical Russians hacking away at our democracy. More grounded Clintonians have less malevolent bogeymen — our Founding Fathers. As they see it, the election’s outcome should be blamed on a dysfunctional and archaic electoral-vote system. Hillary won the national popular vote. She should be president. It is as simple as that. The Electoral College should go the way of Trump University.
They are right about one thing: Clinton did win the popular vote, by some 2.8 million votes, as the most recent data show.
Yet Clinton has only 232 electoral votes (in 20 states plus Washington, D.C.) to Trump’s 306 (in 30 states plus one from Maine), making him the president-elect. So Trump’s election without a popular-vote plurality is regarded as an injustice. Some Democrats claim a moral victory as victims of an electoral-vote system that once again horribly “misfired.” Their claim, however, neglects two facts.
First, had the election been conducted with rules awarding the presidency to the popular-vote winner, the candidates and many voters quite probably would have acted very differently, and the popular vote might not have been the same. Trump and Clinton would have campaigned in the “safe” states. Potential voters in those states would have felt more pressure to turn out and to vote for “the lesser of two evils” and not to waste their votes on third-party candidates. Some additional Clinton voters would probably have shown up, but gains on the Trump side would probably have been larger as more reluctant Republicans would have been pushed to return to the fold, particularly in big blue states like California, New York and Illinois.
In short, a comparison of the national popular vote as cast and the electoral-vote division is no simple matter. This is particularly true in our age of pervasive polling in which people should have a good idea about whether they live in a state where their presidential vote might make a difference…(read more)
- Hillary Clinton: I was done in by fake news! We need to fix the Internet (blacklistednews.com)
- Hillary Clinton’s Popular Vote Lead Is Now Up To 2% (motherjones.com)
- One of the most viral news stories about Trump’s election win is fake (businessinsider.com)
- Kanye West Meets With Donald Trump At Trump Tower (stereogum.com)
- What Hillary’s Been Doing At Home Since Loss LEAKED, Not What You’d Expect (madworldnews.com)
- ‘Lives Are at Risk.’ Hillary Clinton Warns Against Fake News (time.com)
- Donald Trump Named TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year (voanews.com)
- Twitter account tracks elusive Hillary Clinton ‘in the wild’ (mashable.com)