« Gwen Ifill - Beloved Figure | Main | Time Out »

15 November 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

TV

Since the left is composed, mainly, of emotional infants, this reaction (and the "protests") are not surprising.
Most of them seem to have "grown up" getting their way by "demanding" and tantrum-throwing.
And then there's the crying and the "safe spaces."
I'm an old guy and I can (when needed) intimidate most of these little wussies.

pj33

Why should we believe that the national popular vote reflects the true will of the people. Both campaigns focused their time and dollars on what they saw as the main battleground states, completely ignoring many vote rich, but not in play, states. I would expect if Trump had campaigned in California, he would have energized the otherwise demoralized Republicans who had no chance at any statewide race. In the last polls in the state Clinton was up 22 points, she ended up taking the popular vote by 29 points. Had Trump campaigned, that difference would likely have been erased and so adding to Trump's national vote totals. The nation popular vote is simply a distorted artifact of a presidential ele ction fought only in about 20% of the states.

The Twisted Genius

As I remember, Kennedy lost the popular vote to Nixon back in the day. That's just the way the system works. Those demanding we change the EA system today are petulant fools. OTOH, I have no real problem with their street protests, except for the vandalism, or the "not my president" thing. Didn't the NRA start that years ago? Plus, the opposition is bound to morph into something else well before the inauguration.

Nancy K

I agree that both sides need to play by the rules. Trump is our president or will be after Jan 29th. I wonder though how Trump and his followers would have reacted if the votes had gone the other way, with Trump winning popular and Clinton winning electoral.

turcopolier

pf khana

Absolutely not! You do not understand that the states are real and not a phantasm. pl

The Porkchop Express

"You just listen to the old Pork Chop Express here now and take his advice on a dark and stormy night when the lightning's crashin' and the thunder's rollin' and the rain's coming down in sheets thick as lead."

-Big Trouble in China. Excellent movie. A Kurt Russell classic.

I suppose people do forget, though I don't imagine how it's "easy." Not to be obstinate and I get the "whorish media" bears a lot of blame, but that's still not good enough. It is absurd in the extreme that Americans should/need be re-taught every four years what our system is (definitionally), how it works (functionally), and why it was created that way (philosophically).

AK

"I wonder though how Trump and his followers would have reacted if the votes had gone the other way, with Trump winning popular and Clinton winning electoral."

That's a moot point, and it seems by asking that question, you are seeking some cursory justification for the behavior of those protesting the results. If you must ask that hypothetical, please couple it with a consideration of what Clinton's supporters would have to say about the EC in such a circumstance. My take on it is that they'd be perfectly fine with it and hail it as an example of the wisdom of our founding fathers protecting the republic from the masses of poor breeding who seek to destroy the country through their ignorance.

Edward

I think the U.S. should have a parliamentary system. This would allow third parties to participate in the government.

Babak Makkinejad

I think the analogue of the President of the United States would be something like the Holy Roman Emperor or the King of Kings, or the a Roman Consul.

He is the President of nominally sovereign states and the Captain General of the Armed Forces of the United States.

I think US states lost that de facto claim to sovereignty on the battlefields of the War Between the States but the de jur claim still obtains.

May be German commentators could supply analogues as theirs is also a Federal Republic.

crf

States should consider apportioning their EC votes according to the proportion of votes Presidential candidates received in their particular states.

The method of Maine and Nebraska is "fairer" than most states' winner take all system. Me and Ne give 2 EV to the winner of the state, and each congressional district gives the Presidential winner of the district an EV.

The electoral college is fine, but the "winner take all" method most states use to choose them is a little unfair. Larger states matter much more than smaller states, currently.

Changing things is harder said than done. Both parties will want to retain winner take all in their larger states that reliably vote for them. Florida, being the largest swing state, would be the best bet for going to a Maine or Nebraska style Presidential electoral system.

Larry Kart

pj33's post makes good sense to me. The drive to replace the electoral college exemplifies American Liberalism at its most shortsighted and petulant.

Freudenschade

LeaNer,

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Freudenschade

Col.,

The electors have never functioned as independent actors as the framers intended. The electoral college was a noble experiment that failed, with no prospect for fixing it. It should be kept or abolished purely on the basis of whether the proportional representation it gives to each state is a worthwhile end.

mistah charley, ph.d.

"the states are real" - from a 2010 Census report on Lifetime Mobility in the United States:

Lifetime Mobility: Most people in
the United States live in the state in
which they were born.


The comparison of data on state of
residence in 2010 to data on state and
region of birth reflects the cumulative
effect of long-term patterns of migration.
Fifty-nine percent of people in the
United States were born in their state of
residence (Table 1). However, there is
significant geographic variation. At
more than 70 percent, the Midwest
had the highest percentage of its
current population born in their
current state, indicating relatively
lower lifetime mobility. The West
was at the other end of the scale
with less than half of its population
born in that region. The West
led in the proportion of the population
that was foreign born, just
under 20 percent, followed by the
Northeast at 15.6 percent.
The state with the highest percentage
of current residents born
in-state is Louisiana, with 78.8
percent of current residents born
there. It was followed by three
states in the great lakes region:
Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania,
with 76.6, 75.1, and 74.0 percent
of residents born in their
current state, respectively. In four
states, Alaska, Arizona, Florida,
and Nevada, and in the District of
Columbia, less than 40 percent of
residents were born in that state or
district. With less than one quarter
of its 2010 population born in
that state, Nevada had the lowest
percentage in the country.

Quoted from
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-07.pdf

Prem

Maybe all states should, like Maine and Nebraska, split their electoral votes by congressional district.

Would that have affected the outcome?

The small states would keep their overrepresentation but the campaigns would have to spend time in all the purple districts in California and the deep South etc.

BTW congratulations to the American people for choosing the much lesser of two evils, in the face of overwhelming propaganda.


LG

They might have acted with surprising reasonableness.

Madam, your prediction about who would win was wrong. Now perhaps it is time to consider that your predilection was wrong too..

LG

It should not work that way. In India, constituencies to the national parliament were initially allotted on this principle of proportional representation. In the early 1970s, it became clear that the southern states like Kerala which had reach zero population growth would be the losers in such a system. On the other hand, states like UP that kept metastasising with an additional (11 million births annually now) would swamp he parliament. The supreme court decided to freeze constituencies per state. I think this is a reasonable system that has served the US well.

jdledell

I would like to see all the states adopt something similar to Maine and Nebraska except electoral votes would be determined by the winner of votes in each congressional district with two electoral votes based on the statewide results. This would not do harm to the theory behind the Electoral College and the Federalism it reflects. Basically this would forced a truly national political campaign where the two sides fight it out across 435 Congressional districts rather than a few swing states. This would make it prudent for Republicans to campaign in California,New Jersey and some other states and Democrats might campaign in Texas and Mississippi etc.

Mark Logan


As long as the vote totals are within a percent or two I think there will be no serious calls for an Amendment to abolish it. Should for whatever reason the day comes when there is a significantly difference there almost certainly will. Everybody hates it when the system is "rigged against them", as Trump put it, and the majority have the power to change that.

I had heard it was created with the intention of the electors being the ones who chose somewhere before. I was repeated here. Sounds interesting. The Electors were not intended to be robots but to be the actual people who made the choice? Is this documented?

Interesting concept if true. If so I guess they failed to consider the problem of electing a representative to do one and only one task would entail The People asking their candidates one and only one question.

SoCal Rhino

We actually went Dem this election. Made history.

Anna

An amazing email from an activist-Clintonist:
"The good news? Donald Trump will not be sworn in as President until January 20, 2017. And between now and then, there is still a lot the U.S. Justice Department can do to investigate his ties to Russia. Sign the petition to the Justice Department: Investigate Donald Trump's improper ties to Russia.
Despite his repeated denials, Donald Trump was in direct contact with Russian President Vladimir Putin's government throughout the campaign. This is frightening, because Putin has dangerous empire-building goals with Eastern Europe—not to mention his fascist government that persecutes gay people. Was there any illegal coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian hacker attacks on the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign? What ties does Trump have to Russian oligarchs to whom he might be in massive financial debt? What exactly does the Russian government have in mind for a Trump Administration? We deserve to know answers to this and other questions, and we won't get them after January 20th. That's why the Justice Department must investigate Trump's ties to Russia now. Sign the petition.
Keep fighting,
Paul Hogarth, Daily Kos"

Mr. Hogarth attempted at pretending that he knew nothing about this http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/24/pictures-of-bill-clinton-giving-a-500k-speech-in-moscow/ and this "As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock." http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company
What is the best way to highlight the corrupt involvement of Clinton Foundation with Russians and Saudis than by making hysterical claims about "Russian influence on the US elections." Of course there was an influence coming from an idea of a hot war with Russia, which affected certainly the US electorate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
Blog powered by Typepad