Posted on 12/19/2016 7:06:45 AM PST by VitacoreVision
It is alleged that Hillary Clinton won a popular vote majority. Therefore, if the nation were not burdened with the antiquated Electoral College, anguished and freaked-out Americans whine, she, instead of Donald Trump, would be the next president of the United States. You say, "Hold it. Before you go further, Williams, what do you mean it is alleged that Clinton received most of the popular vote? It's a fact." I say "alleged" because according to Gregg Phillips of True the Vote, an estimated 3 million noncitizens voted. Presumably, those votes went to Clinton.
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote just as Hillary Clinton allegedly did. Such outcomes have led to calls to abandon the Constitution's Article 2 provision for the state electors to select presidents. Despite the fact that the system has served us well for over 200 years, many Americans now call for its abandonment in favor of electing presidents by popular vote. Before we abandon the Electoral College, let's consider the function it performs.
According to 2013 census data, nine states — California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia and Michigan — have populations that total roughly 160 million, slightly more than half the U.S. population. It is conceivable that just nine states could determine the presidency in a popular vote. The Electoral College gives states with small populations a measure of protection against domination by states with large populations. It levels the political playing field a bit. For example, California is our most populous state, with about 39 million people. Wyoming is our least populated state, with about 600,000 people. California's population is about 66 times larger than Wyoming's. California has 55 electoral votes, and Wyoming has three. Thus, in terms of electoral votes, California's influence is only 18 times that of Wyoming. Even though our nine high-population states have a total of 241 electoral votes, a candidate needs 270 to win the presidency. That forces presidential candidates to campaign in thinly populated states and respect the wishes of the people there.
The Founding Fathers held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams predicted, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Edmund Randolph said, "That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
Throughout our Constitution are impediments to the tyranny of majority rule. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto. To change the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed, which requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and enacted, which requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule.
Despite a public consensus on the issue — resulting from miseducation — there's nothing just or fair about majority rule. In fact, one of the primary dangers of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy and respectability to acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Think about it. How many decisions in your life would you like made through majority rule? What about what car we purchase, where we live and whether we should have ham or turkey for Thanksgiving dinner? I am sure you would deem it tyranny if these decisions were made by a majority vote.
Message to democrats: figure out why Americans detest Hillary and like Bill.
Both sides knew the rules going in.
Americans, by and large, don’t like sore losers.
Just ask upstate New Yorkers what they think about NYC dominating all elections.
Also, it is reasonable to suggest that a large percentage of the popular vote that went for Hillary were by illegal voters. All attempts to require an ID while voting have been fought tooth and nail by the Democrats and even the Democrat president, Obama, openly encouraged non-citizens to vote (in an interview on a Spanish station) “because they wouldn’t be caught.”
Is it rampant and enough to give Hillary the edge in the popular vote in the last election? Unknown. But it is not insignificant.
I detest the phrase”majority rules”;it is used to justify a lot of bad decisions.
Marriage is the ultimate check on majority rule. As a single person, you’re effectively a dictator. You answer only to yourself and you can do what you want.
Marriage ends that state of affairs. You have a partner to consider and you must compromise. They have a veto on what you want to. There is no majority rule in a marriage.
Its equally true in a republic. And majorities are usually transient in nature. That is why their evil and baneful effects are swiftly mitigated. We should not want to change it.
Hillary’s nationwide popular vote margin was about 2.9million. Her margin of victory in California was over 4 million. Take California out of the equation (and subtract the popular vote total from both candidates) and Trump wins the popular vote by just over 1.4 million.
Alternately, Hillary got 1.3 million votes from Los Angeles county alone. Add that to the totals she got from The Bronx and Queens, and that’s her entire nationwide popular vote total right there. Hardly a nationwide mandate.
Our forefathers were men of stunning intellect in the way they crafted our Constitution. They gave us the most powerful tool to manage a nation that’s ever been created by man. We have already damaged their Republic by passing the 16th and 17th amendments.
Yep - a lot of New York State is beautiful, non-big-city country and very conservative. They effectively have no vote except for local elections and their voices are drowned out by "Gotham".
Last line there should be “entire popular vote margin”, not total.
The longest running and most successful running government in world in modern times, and they want to change it? WTF are they thinking? Damn fools don’t know how well off they are. Would they be happier living in Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea or anywhere else in the world? Turn off the self destruct button, idiots.
Those facts can't be repeated often enough. No one should want one state monopolizing the entire country. It is no less than a dictatorship by a few metropolitan areas alone.
New York City has a population that is 37 percent foreign born.
...or non-Chicago Illinoisans
He can rest assured Texas will never vote the same as Califreakistan.
True. And they gravitated to the city because, like Kalifornia, it was already polluted with Leftists and welcomed them with open arms.
Depends on the 2 parties within a marriage. Since there is no deciding vote, in a 2 party marriage, then it usually becomes a matter of who can exert more influence. 8>)
No. Message to democrats -
PLEASE PLEASE keep doing what you’re doing! You’re inability to govern, lead, and show logical, rational thought is being exposed daily!
You’re a laughing stock, now slide the sword in all the way so most of you end up in the psych ward.
Likewise here in Colorado (which went to Hillary). Boulder and Denver dominate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.