About that Clinton popular vote victory

[William Thornton]

Clinton's votes exceeded Trump's by six million in just two states, New York and California. accounts for her popular vote win but election loss. She lost in the 13 swing states by over two million but was a slam dunk in the states that didn't matter.

The electoral college may be hated by Democrats these days but it prevents a few large states from dominating the election. That was the idea. It works well. Clinton lost because she failed to get the votes she needed to win. There's nothing to discuss on that. She didn't even campaign in one critical state, Wisconsin, and foolishly spent late money in Texas, even here in Georgia. She should ask for a refund from pollsters and a salary clawback from advisors.

[Sandy]

The idea that the votes of some Americans don't count as much as others, because of where they live geographically is not only ignorant, but it is dangerous to the stability of the Republic. Americans are Americans, and the idea that some states shouldn't "dominate" an election because of their size should be laid to rest along with the antiquated idea that allowed it to be inserted into the constitution in the first place. The electoral college is a holdover from the days of the Articles of Confederation, and idea that failed miserably when it elevated the individual rights of states, acting as sovereign countries, over any kind of central government system. It was a compromise to smaller states who didn't understand that a unified republic was a benefit, not a threat, not anywhere near as much as an invasion and dominance by France, Spain or England would have been had they remained as they were under the Articles of Confederation.

The conditions and political ideas that the Electoral College was put in place to protect no longer exist. As the nation has grown, and expanded, the Electoral College skews the value of individual votes, even among smaller states. The ratio of actual votes to an electoral vote in Wyoming is half of what it is in either Rhode Island or the District of Columbia, though all three of them have three electoral votes. The ratio of voters to electoral votes in California is higher than any other state. The idea that some states matter more than others is contrary to the very core of American values, the principle of one person, one vote.

Oh, and about that Trump electoral vote victory. The three states that put him over the top, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, are states he won by a combined total of fewer than 40,000 votes, as of today, and that margin continues to shrink as provisional ballots are counted. Throw in Florida, and it barely tops the 50,000 mark. She won three swing states, and his margin in the other two isn't anywhere near a million combined.

[William Thornton]

Civics class debate on the value of the electoral college. Unlikely to be settled by blogger fiat.

But, yawn...Clinton knew the electoral college math and lost heavily.

[Sandy]

Yes, she did, but didn't have Russian interference or help to win them very narrowly.

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

I don't buy the argument that, without the electoral college, smaller states would get ignored and the presidential campaign would move to the big cities and the coasts. The fact of the matter is that if the popular vote decided the election, all of those cumulative votes in smaller states would be important. In 2012, Obama picked up 44% of the vote in "red" states. He couldn't have won the popular vote without the votes he got in those states. And when the outcome is predictable "on the coasts", campaigns would have to tip the balance in the rural areas, and in those smaller to mid-size states. During the past three Presidential election cycles, once the primaries were over, the map narrowed considerably, and put the campaigns in the same four or five states, with more appearances in Ohio and Florida (a coastal state, BTW) than anywhere else. The conditions that caused the founding fathers to include the EC as an "equalizing" device no longer exist. There are 50 states, not just 13, and the population is spread out, with significant population in urban and suburban areas. Economic interests, which were confined to the boundaries of individual states in 1789, have shifted from intra-state commerce to interstate.

I'd be in favor of a propotional EC allocation, where electoral votes in a state are divided up and allocated based on the popular vote within the state that the candidate gets, rather than some geographical formula. That would still over-value the individual votes of people in smaller states, but it would eliminate the question of which candidate represents the "American people" when a majority of them voted for someone else, regardless of where they live.

[Haruo]

What if electoral votes were by jurisdiction rather than by state? Has anyone done the math to see how this one would add up if each state (and DC) got two votes and each congressional district (and DC) got one vote?

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

In this day of intra-national communications, there is no need to give small states more representation than large states.

At present they get more representation both in the Senate (2 senators regardless of size) and in the national presidential election. That's 2 of the three branches of government. All people are not created equal in the Electoral College system.

It should be abolished and we should go with one person, one vote. While it may not be as bad as the 2/3 vote blacks got in our Constitution (which has been repealed, in principle at least), it still can and has swung elections (like this one).

[Tim Bonney]

A Democratic Republic is designed to do two things, follow the will of the majority AND protect the rights of the minority.

I've seen convincing arguments as to how using the popular vote would protect the rights of the majority. But I have yet to see more than speculation as to how the rights of the minority would be protected.

I'm thinking of such groups in rural areas such as the indigiounous people in Standing Rock. If you think no one cares about South Dakota and North Dakota now, imagine when the election is decided in completely in larger states. No one in CA or NY will care what kind of pipeline runs through the Missouri River valley.

While I agree that the EC is seriously flawed, if we replaced it we'd need to look at unintended side effects that effect minority populations whose voice is already marginalized.

[William Thornton]

Good luck on amending the constitution. Requires 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass it. Not a chance, DOA.

But those whose ox has been gored may certainly complain about the electoral college. I've done a bit of it myself.

[KeithE]

[Haruo]

Or you could say California is the most quintessential nanny state imaginable, with its incessant notices warning you that this that and the other thing is "known to the state of California" to cause cancer, birth defects, and bad breath. My most unregenerate right-wing close relative has lived in California since junior high.

[Sandy]

You couldn't allot electoral votes by congressional district. Gerrymandering is as much of a problem as the unequal value of votes with the EC, and it's still a geographical solution. The Democrats who run for house seats have consistently drawn a larger number of votes across the board than Republican candidates in virtually every election since 2000. If you look at maps of congressional districts, most of them are contorted, twisted shapes which give the term "gerrymander" a clear definition. If you assigned electoral votes to congressional districts, you'd have what you have now with Congress, a Republican majority elected by a minority of total votes.

It would take a 3/4 ratification of the states, or a constitutional convention, to eliminate the EC. To change how electoral votes are allocated, however, would not require an amendment. That would require a simple majority vote in both houses.

The fact that an anomaly in the difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote has occurred two times in less than two decades, and by the size of margins that it has happened, is evidence that a change is needed.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Stephen Fox]

NPR Here and Now had a segment yesterday about the Clinton loss that makes Thornton's analyses laughable, preposterous at best. Story at theatlantic.com but listen online to the interview of the author first for good synopsis

http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2016/12/ ... king-class

You can listen then click on the story. After Thornton does his homework we can pick up the discussion then.

[Jim]

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Hillary's plan, programs, and platform were manifestly ineffective. Blame her (just couldn't connect with the voters) or her staff (didn't put her candidacy in the right places)...or the Russians, or fake news, or voter fraud, or alt-right stuff, or whatever the losing side manages to generate next.

It is indisputable that trumps victory has generateda considerable increase in economic optimism.

A lot of this stuff is to assuage the defeated intellectual elitists and leftists....beats a crying room I suppose.

[Stephen Fox]

Did you listen online to the entire 7 minute segment chat with Derek Thompson. He makes a case.

You can laugh and mock all you want but I do not think Trump woulda ever ruffled the waters had their been no fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Look at Schultz today at religion dispatches on Jonathan Merritt.

No one interview or piece tells the entire story but my friend Thornton is on the wrong side of history in this election as he was on the wrong side of history with the SBC Takeover.

I stand with Molly Worthen, Balmer. Stewart Newman, even the good Methodist woman with all her flaws and grates on this one.

Thornton with the Help of James Dobson and Jeffress and Falwell Jr and Frank Graham got sucker punched.

And that is nothing to glory in.

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

Timothy, you may be right. We will see.

Fox, you're not getting this. I'll give you this point but winning the election meant connecting with voters and motivating them to get to the polls in the swing states. She failed. But if the goal is winning a platform debate among wonks, you win. Doesn't matter.

[Stephen Fox]

https://baptistnews.com/article/former- ... FCSEhGYYdU

Donnie Mac was the Collinsville deacon who asked Currie Feb 24, 2002 at the local Baptist Church, Why bring it here. He was the deacon along with his brother sent by the pastor's wife and Jennifer Wilkins that began the process that resulted in my ouster from the congregation, the churchin.

I sat with Donnie most of the game Friday night. You can read about that at my blog.

I think Currie has some lessons learned for Thornton and others, some very serious matters.