Posted on 11/15/2016 9:58:25 AM PST by Kaslin
Trump took to Twitter this morning to refer to the Electoral College as “genius” because it forces candidates to pay attention to all states, even ones that would presumably be ignored in a popular vote-based campaign.
The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016
Some critics are arguing this is an about-face from a 60 Minutes interview that aired Sunday night where Trump said, despite winning, he had issues with the Electoral College.
“I’m not going to change my mind just because I won,” said Trump during the interview. “But I would rather see it where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes and somebody else gets 90 million votes and you win.”
The president-elect made an even more important point in the preceding tweet.
If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2016
A lot of Trump-haters are criticizing Trump for winning the Electoral College, but not the popular vote. Some are even saying his victory is illegitimate because he did not win over the majority of voters.
However, this is an accusation based on assumptions. We don’t know if Trump would have won the popular vote because the campaign was not based with that objective in mind. Neither Trump nor Clinton ran the 2016 election with the goal of winning the majority of voters. They ran to win the Electoral College. Trump prevailed in that pursuit.
If we lived in another universe and the 2016 election began with all candidates vying for the popular vote – the campaign would have been run entirely differently. Clinton would have made many more stops in Texas. We would have seen Trump camping out in highly populated states (and dark blue) states such as California and New York. These are two states that have no chance of going red statewide, but still contain a bountiful amount of red voters. In a popular vote-based election, it would make total sense to campaign in those places. In an Electoral College-based election, that would be a complete waste of campaign resources.
Understanding this concept explains why criticism of Trump being awarded the White House should be considered unfair. The objective of the game was to win 270 Electoral College votes or more. Trump did this. Fair and square.
also contains voter fraud.
Just google Chesterton’s fence. It explains why we abandon the EC at our peril.
Trump campaigned with a much broader stroke. He did indeed speak to ALL the people.
Subtract an estimated 3 million votes cast illegally by noncitizens, probably 19 out of 20 for Hillary.
Half the American population lives in the blue shaded-in counties on this map. This is why we have the Electoral College, to make it FAIR. The left is all about fairness, isn't it?
Thanks for naming yourselves and making a handy supplementary deportation list, cucarachas!
Once states got beyond a percentage of victory they also stopped counting mail in votes. There were 7 million of those and I think Democrats did not win that either.
I’m glad he realizes the importance of the EC. We need to keep that to have any chance at fairness.
GMTA...(some just a little faster ;-))
I would say that the article on the Electoral College is THE most important part of the entire US Constitution.
Article 2, Section 1, Clause 3
Clause 3: Electors[edit]
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice.
In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
Chesterton’s fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. The quotation is from G. K. Chesterton’s 1929 book The Thing, in the chapter entitled “The Drift from Domesticity”:
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.[1]
History is full of examples of negative outcomes that resulted from the failure to understand this admonition.
I did read where someone told one of the #notmypresident protestors that Trump was totally in favor of the Electoral College, and keeping it free.
She thought that would be a good thing.
From the article
“...a 60 Minutes interview that aired Sunday night...”
Which twisted his words and left stuff out.
IIRC he made the case for the EC then also.
Absentees run two-to-one GOP in a normal year, likely more than that this year. Military, travelers, retired. There should be a statutory requirement to count all votes.
He was wrong on this. No doubt an advisor pointed it out to him.
The Electoral College was created by a constitutional amendement. It will have to be changed that way. End of discussion.
What’s with this winning the popular vote? Last I looked, Canky is just under 48%. She will accumulate more votes over the next month or so, while counting completes, but will NOT get over 50%, will NOT get a majority of the PV.
OTOH, Trump got 57%, a clear majority of the EV. (presuming MI in the mix; without MI, then 54%).
If the Electoral College was made up of members, who vote how their individual Congressional Districts voted, we would really see the Presidency reflect the wishes of American Voters at the time of the Presidential Election.
I believe this is what the Founding Fathers intended prior to the development of political parties.
The House of Representatives reflects the public’s will. It's called the People's House. Each member was elected in their Congressional District, and represent approximately 700,000 people. The only case where the President would be a different party than the House Majority, would be when the President was not following the interest of the public and they voted against the Presidential Candidate despite voting their party for House.
The other scenario (President not same party as majority of House) would be if the two Electoral Votes per state (that were intended to represent the state's interest) were cast according to the statewide popular vote, or split. In this case Trump,as the Republican Nominee would have started out with the prospect of 300 Electoral Votes (Combined Republican House and Senate Membership) prior to the election. Elections would be Nationwide, not concentrated in large metropolitan areas where voter fraud can be conducted easily. We need to separate National Elections from State and Local Elections. Set up Nationwide Guidelines for Federal Elections, and we need to establish one National Voters Day Holiday for voting. Citizens are being disenfranchised under the current system. As Donald Trump said, It's Rigged."
You are correct that a constitutional amendment would be required to change the electoral collage mechanism however it was not established by an amendment but was an integral part of Article II.
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.