@2bits"This is the procedure defined in our Constitution. Maybe
it's you who needs to retake basic civics. The Constitution is the
foundation and framework. The Constitution defines the process, not whatever we
want."I'm not sure what you agree or disagree with about
what I wrote. For starts, I'm in complete agreement with the letter writer.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
In any system that purports to be a democracy or democratic republic, the
operative principle is "one person, one vote." The Electoral College
does not adhere to that principle, thus is not democratic in any sense of the
word. As we've seen twice in the past five elections, the man
who gained the Oval Office was not elected democratically. And yet in each case
that man has been able to make Supreme Court appointments that have altered the
course of American history, with much still to come. So the Supreme Court
itself is no pillar of democracy.In short, at least two-thirds of
our federal government structure is not democratic. And yet many if not most
Americans routinely and unthinkingly refer to this country as "the
world's greatest democracy"! Ah, the power of propaganda!
Utah is already insignificant to national politicians. Why would you want to
make us even more insignificant?The population of California is 40
Million. The population of Utah is 3 million. Who cares what Utah wants?We only matter in the Senate. Thank God for the Senate. Otherwise we
may as well not exist.We don't matter in the Electoral College.
Nobody cares if they get Utah or not, even if they get 100% of our electoral
votes. We would matter to them even less if these people get their way.Utah and a few other States could disappear and national politicians
Support for a national popular vote has been strong in every smallest state
surveyed in polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well
as every demographic groupAmong the 13 lowest population states, the
National Popular Vote bill has passed in 9 state legislative chambers, and been
enacted by 5 jurisdictions.In Gallup polls since they started asking
in 1944 until the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public supported the
current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the
presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not
mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about
70% opposed and about 10% undecided).Support for a national popular
vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent
voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41
red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81%
range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big
states, and in other states polled. Voter turnout is reduced as more
voters realize their votes do not matter.
Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”“ 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. There’s a
reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.” Newt Gingrich said: “No one should become president of the United
States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states.
America would be better served with a presidential election process that
treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill
accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our
fundamental democratic principles.” Of COURSE Clinton
understood the Electoral College and ran to win it.Trump got more
votes in CA than he got in AL, AR, LA, MS and WV combined.None of the
votes in CA for Trump, helped Trump. CA Democratic votes in 2016
were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.The vote difference in
CA wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without
the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.If
you eliminate the votes cast in TX, she won the electoral vote.
@Karen R. "...states that award their electoral votes on the basis of winner
takes all silence the voices of millions."Their votes are
counted in the choice of their state's electors.
States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their
voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and
their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.The Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential
electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section
1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution—"Each State shall
appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of
Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized
the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their
electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."The
National Popular Vote bill is states with 270 electors replacing state
winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the
candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned
in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting
states, to guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the
Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United
With statewide winner-take-all laws, a presidential candidate could lose despite
winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 smaller states.With the
current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not
mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could
only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous
states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate
to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation's votes!But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of
the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political
candidate. In 2016, among the 11 largest states: 7 voted Republican(Texas,
Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 voted
Democratic (CA, NY, IL, and NJ). The big states are just about as closely
divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the 4 largest states,
the 2 largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of
2.1 million votes for Bush, while the 2 largest Democratic states generated a
total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
To "Karen R" what about Congress and the Supreme Court? They have the
same power to make decisions that effect everybody in the US.Do you
know what a "Republic" is? Per the Constitution we are to maintain a
Republican form of Government. That means that we don't directly elect the
Federalist No 68 makes a good point: "It was also peculiarly desirable to
afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder....[A]s the
electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which
they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less
to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than
if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place."It
isolates controversies to individual states. For example, the Florida recounts
of 2000 were able to be carried out in one state. Imagine such a recount being
conducted on a nationwide basis. The potential for mischief would be too great.
If the electoral college were the only means of representing state's
rights, then the letter writer might have an argument, but it isn't even
close. Each state has two senators and a state administration filled with
people that can represent the state's interests on any subject and at any
time.Meanwhile, POTUS is the only office with the power/reach to
impact every American. yet states that award their electoral votes on the basis
of winner takes all silence the voices of millions. I don't expect Trump
loyalists to recognize the basic unfairness of this, but real Republicans will.
They know it happens to them in blue states just like it happens to liberals in
"You seem to Assume Hillary Clinton wasn't "Shady". She was.
Not as bad as Trump, but still shady."On this minor issue, I
respectfully disagree. She was far worse than Trump, even without factoring in
EsquireYou put forward some interesting and cogent arguments. Not that I
agree with all of them, but they are well expressed. Thank you.The
states are not over-represented in the senate – each state has equal
representation in the senate. Perhaps individual citizens of smaller states have
more senatorial representation than others, but not the states themselves
– the senate was designed to represent the states, not the individuals, so
any perceived individual over representation is irrelevant.The
office of president is not directly elected by the people, but their votes
determine how their electors will vote.I believe states’
rights go beyond what you believe.Circumstances may have changed,
but the EC is still filling a vital role.I would assert that in 2016
the EC DID prevent the election of someone who should not be president.
@Mata LeaoRE: "Great letter. All others, retake a Civics
class"...---This is the procedure defined in our Constitution.
Maybe it's you who needs to retake basic civics. The Constitution is the
foundation and framework. The Constitution defines the process, not whatever
we want.The President and Vice President have never been elected by
pure popular vote in America. The process is defined in our Constitution.
Retake your civics class if it didn't teach you about the Constitution.===@unrepentant progressive 7:12 a.m.RE:
"States' rights do matter"...---Nobody said
"States' rights do matter". Just you speaking for others.This isn't a State's Rights issue. It's a Constitutional
issue.===RE: "Last time that was used as an excuse,
it was for nefarious purpose"...----In reality... Pretty sure
the instance you are thinking of was not the "last time" States Rights
was used.The States Rights concept is used all the time. But this
is not a States Rights issue."State's Rights" refers to
the rights and powers held by individual US states rather than by the federal
government in the Constitution. This isn't one of them. That's not
what this is about.
1. The states are already represented by population in the House, and small
states are over represented in the Senate.2. The office of
President is the only office that is elected by all the people. Why should the
vote of someone in Wyoming be weighted more than someone in Ohio? 3.
States rights are subordinate to the interests of the national government.
Lincoln and the Civil War settle that question. States rights are only relevant
to the extent of the particular interests of a state. States rights make no
sense when it comes to the office of President.4. The Electoral
College was a compromise to deal with the particular interests of the 13
individual states at the time, including slavery. Those circumstances have
changed and the EC makes no sense now.5. The EC is not exercising
independent judgment as was originally intended. One point of it was to avoid
the election of someone who should not be President. In 2016, everyone knew
Trump was bad for America, but the EC was nothing but a rubber stamp of the
political parties, which have no standing under the Constitution.The
Electoral College should be abolished.
@embarrassed UtahnRE: "We are now stuck with a “shady” (to
put it mildly) president who has done indelible harm to our nation. That’s
enough for me to favor abolishing the electoral college"...---Do
you Assume we haven't had shady president's before? We have, and we
survived.Do you Assume if we didn't have the 12th Amendment we
would never have a shady president again? I assure you we would. Probably even
more shady.You seem to Assume Hillary Clinton wasn't
"Shady". She was. Not as bad as Trump, but still shady.Getting rid of the 12th Amendment is not a guarantee we won't have shady
candidates evermore. Or that shady candidates won't win. Just look at
Congress... How many "Shady" characters there? Or local elections...
some shady characters there too. And we don't have the Electoral College
in Congressional or local elections.Getting rid of the 12th
Amendment is not the solution. Having better candidates is the solution.
Hillary Clinton was almost as shady as Trump.I didn't vote for
him, but that doesn't mean I can't support him. He did win.
He's the President now. It's kinda important for Americans to support
the American President.
Electoral College has worked for America for how many years now... And it
needs to be abolished, just because Hillary Clinton lost?We are
kinda obligated to do it that way until we get rid of the Constitution, or the
Twelfth Amendment, which provides the procedure for electing the President and
Vice President.I think there is some wisdom in the twelfth
amendment. I think we should keep the Constitution and the 12th amendment, even
if one party doesn't like it.
I remember the 2000 election. In the lead up to the election, I remember that
some people were mentioning how George W. Bush could win the popular vote, but
lose the election. And people were asked what they thought. Every
Democrat, when asked, said something to the effect of "That's how the
rules are. If it happens, we expect him to accept the result and move
on."If it had happened that way (instead of the exact opposite),
and then again with Hillary over Trump, then the roles would be swapped today.
Liberals would be defending the system as designed, and Republicans would be
extolling the virtues of "one person, one vote." There's absolutely nothing about this issue that is inherently
"better" for democracy. It's just the way we've set it up.
(And frankly, we had to do it this way, or we weren't going to get the
small states to ratify the US Constitution.)
EmbarrassedThrow out CA and trump wins the popular vote.See, I
can do a “what if?” too.The EC is doing just what it was
intended to do, prevent the large states from running roughshod over smaller
states.As was noted in an earlier thread, some profession sports
championships are decided by who wins the most games, not by who scores the most
points across all those games.As for a “shady” (to put
it mildly) POTUS – he left office in January 2001 and has a marital
connection to hilary.TaterNo one’s vote is cancelled
– everyone’s vote is important in deciding who their state’s
electors support.The EC was not intended as a means to overcome lack
of mass communication, as you assert, but to (I’ll repeat myself and
everyone else with an understanding of how it works) keep larger states from
dominating smaller states.
To "embarrassed Utahn!" and what is your point? The President is not
determined by popular vote, but by the electoral college. Hillary's loss
only shows that she didn't understand the rules of the vote. She went after
the popular vote instead of going after the electoral college vote.As for the lies, 9,000 is a low number for a President. If you disagree, show
us the study that uses the same standards on any other POTUS that has been used
on Trump.To "ConservativeCommonTater" voting for the losing
candidate doesn't mean that your vote doesn't count. It just means you
chose the losing candidate. If you want to vote for the winning candidate, maybe
you should vote for the person who is polling ahead in your area when you go and
"However, even the Electoral College is “weighted” in favor of
population, 435 versus 100. We do not need to abolish the Electoral College.
States' rights do matter."Voting should be based on the
number of people that vote one way or another. Cancelling their vote under the
premise of "State's Rights" is as bad as Gerrymandering. The Electoral is an antiquated process from a period when there was no mass
communications. We've long passed that problem.Get rid of the
Electoral College, I'd like my vote to count for once.
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. We are now stuck with a
“shady” (to put it mildly) president who has told over 9000 lies and
has done indelible harm to our nation. That’s enough for me to favor
abolishing the electoral college.
Mr. Godfrey is absolutely correct.
Great, very clear letter.Expect to get several "one person-one vote,
every vote counts, modern times, etc" comments from folks who are still
unhappy HC didn't win. Again, geat letter. All others, retake a
"States' rights do matter"Last time that was used as an
excuse, it was for nefarious purpose.