Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Tuesday, November 15. 2016

The popular vote

All this about the popular vote is nonsense. Clearly, if the rule of the game were popular vote instead of electoral college, national election campaigns would be planned entirely differently.


As it is now, candidates must appeal to broad sectors of the country and to a broad geography instead of just to the largest urban areas. The electoral college, like the Senate, gives some importance to states with differing interests or without large urban centers. That was part of the deal. Our republic was designed with many systems to prevent majorities from overpowering the rest.


Note how views of the Elector system change.

Posted by The News Junkie in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 13:34 | Comments (16) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I understand why Hillary would call for the end of the Electoral College. But it isn't going away without an amendment to the US Constitution. That would take a 2/3 vote of the House and 2/3 vote of the Senate to propose. Then 3/4 of states would need to approve it.

Ain't happening.
#1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-11-15 13:40 (Reply)
Our mistake was to send the illegal alien voters to the wrong states. Next time, we will not make that mistake.
#2 The Reflexive Liberal on 2016-11-15 14:21 (Reply)
Blame Obama. He has tried to spread Syrians, Mexicans, et al to the correct states similarly to the way the Soviet Union spread Russians to its satellite states to achieve cultural and political change.
#2.1 mudbug on 2016-11-15 15:34 (Reply)
And we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for that meddling Obama.
#2.1.1 The Reflexive Liberal on 2016-11-15 15:53 (Reply)
If all goes according to Trump's plans, the illegal aliens won't be around to vote in any state.
#3 ScottJ on 2016-11-15 14:35 (Reply)
The last time Democrats were this mad at Republicans was when the Republicans abolished slavery and let black people vote.
#4 Rondo on 2016-11-15 16:36 (Reply)
The Electoral College is the companion compromise to the 3/5 compromise. There was no way slave states would have agreed to a popular vote. It's a vestige, but small states will never voluntarily surrender their enhanced powers under the Electoral College. It is possible that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could succeed, but it is probably unstable, as states can simply change their minds if their preferred candidate doesn't win.

The worst outcome would be if faithless electors changed the results of the election. That's a weakness of the system that should be addressed before it happens, because then it will be too late.
#5 Zachriel on 2016-11-15 16:55 (Reply)
No, the EC was NOT a companion to the 3/5 compromise. Why would slave states care about a popular vote vs. the states making the decision? I hope you aren't implying that slave states were afraid of slaves voting. They couldn't. And slavery wasn't a political issue in the abolition sense of the term yet, either. The only real issue with the 3/5 compromise was the south agreeing to pay more taxes (taxes were directly imposed on states in those days, not on personal income) in return for slightly more clout in the House and in the EC.

The bigger issue was that very few of the founders wanted a popular election because they feared excessive democracy. What they feared is what we are inching toward here: a presidency elected by promising voters nationwide what they want to hear (free medicine, welfare, etc) at the expense of state legislatures and Congress. The Founding Fathers wanted the president to be responsible to Congress and the state legislatures, not directly picked by the voters.

We agree that the NPVIC won't work. And though there is nothing to stop those states from pledging their state EC votes to the national popular vote winner, dismantling the EC as an institution isn't going to happen any time soon.
#5.1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-11-15 19:52 (Reply)
actually, slavery was a huge issue at the time of the constitutional convention, the document itself is silent on abolition and deferred the decision for later generations, by which time it had spun out of control. note that the document preserved the slave trade for ten years after ratification. 3/5 refers to apportionment of representatives, of course.
#5.1.1 Will Bithers on 2016-11-15 22:26 (Reply)
Will,

Yes, slavery was the law of the land, and thus a big deal. But it wasn't a hotly debated topic in Philly when the Constitution was being written...at least not in the "should we abolish slavery and declare former slaves to be equal to their former owners" sense of the topic we have today.
#5.1.1.1 Dangerous Dean on 2016-11-16 13:45 (Reply)
Remember that the real outcome of the popular vote in US presidential elections is never known.
Counting stops when one candidate or another in an electoral district (typically a county) reaches a majority none of the other candidates can beat.
So in theory at least half of all votes for a county may not be counted at all.
And that starts with most of the time all mail in votes not being counted, typically votes from military personel on deployment, the overwhelming majority of whom vote Republican (2/3 according to figures I saw somewhere).
Of course in truth the popular vote won't likely have a major discrepancy with what is actually counted, but there will be some.

So if Hillary says she has the popular vote, that's another flat faced lie and she knows it, as she can't know what the popular vote is.
This is especially true when the numbers are as close as they were this time around (and have been several times now).
#6 JTW on 2016-11-15 23:53 (Reply)
JTW: Remember that the real outcome of the popular vote in US presidential elections is never known.
Counting stops when one candidate or another in an electoral district (typically a county) reaches a majority none of the other candidates can beat.

All votes are counted, including military votes. In any case, there's no reason why the votes couldn't be counted in the most technologically advanced society in history.
#6.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-16 08:49 (Reply)
I thought the push back against the Dems was nationwide and at all levels. If HRC won the popular vote, how come it didn't carry over across the country?
#7 Exasperated on 2016-11-16 07:46 (Reply)
Exasperated: I thought the push back against the Dems was nationwide and at all levels. If HRC won the popular vote, how come it didn't carry over across the country?

The Electoral College gives weight to smaller, generally more Republican states. Consequently, a voter in Wyoming has 3½ times the influence on the presidential election as a voter in California.
#7.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-16 08:55 (Reply)
That isn't an answer to my question. I was asking why she didn't have coattails, why the Dems didn't gain in the House and in state legislatures.
#8 Exasperated on 2016-11-16 18:32 (Reply)
Exasperated: I was asking why she didn't have coattails, why the Dems didn't gain in the House and in state legislatures.

Democrats gained two Senate seats, and at least five House seats. Clinton only won the popular vote by 1-2%. Democratic turnout was lower than the last two elections. Also, Democrats tend to be clustered rather than dispersed. For instance, a bigger win for Democrats in New York City won't necessarily translate into more House or Senate seats.
#8.1 Zachriel on 2016-11-17 09:09 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.