Patterico's Pontifications

11/9/2016

Hillary Could Win Popular Vote, Reviving Dangerous Arguments About Abolishing Electoral College

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:30 am



Amid all the triumphalism about how the polls were wrong, it’s worth pointing out that Hillary Clinton looks to be headed towards winning the popular vote:

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton finds herself on the wrong end of an electoral split, moving ahead in the popular vote but losing to President-elect Donald Trump in the Electoral College, according to the latest numbers emerging Wednesday.

As of 9:39 a.m. ET, Clinton had amassed 59,238,524 votes nationally, to Trump’s 59,088,024 — a margin of 150,500 that puts Clinton on track to become the fifth U.S. presidential candidate to win the popular vote but lose the election.

This will inevitably lead Big Media and lefties (but I repeat myself) to renew the calls they made in 2000 about abolishing the Electoral College. This is dangerous and must be resisted.

Explaining why requires us to revisit where the Electoral College came from. I know everybody reading this already knows this, but I’m writing it down anyway, so you can show it to the next millenial who starts yammering about doing away with the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is a reflection of the very compromise that formed the Constitution. The large-state delegates proposed the Virginia Plan, which would apportion Congressional representation by population. The small-state delegates proposed the New Jersey plan, which would give each state an equal vote. The ultimate compromise was, as we all know, to have one part of the legislature (the Senate) in which each state had an equal say, and another (the House) in which representation was apportioned by population.

The Electoral College reflects this compromise. The 100 votes of the Senate, the 435 of the House, and three extra votes for the District of Columbia make up the 538 electoral votes.

It’s a central part of the compromise that made this country possible.

They used to teach this stuff in the schools. In case they don’t, pass this along to anyone who complains about the Electoral College today.

[Cross-posted at RedState.]

102 Responses to “Hillary Could Win Popular Vote, Reviving Dangerous Arguments About Abolishing Electoral College”

  1. Not if we pray together to San Andreas, the patron saint of earthquake.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  2. Abolishing the Electoral College would be the absolute worst thing to happen to this country. All Presidential elections would be controlled by about 10 big cities. After a few elections, the country would almost certainly fracture into 2 or 3 countries.

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  3. i’d bet you a tasty bean and cheese burrito that there’s *vastly* more conservative-minded pikachus in blue states what don’t vote cause it’s a waste of time than you have food stamp piggies in red states what don’t vote cause it’s a waste of time

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  4. Mr. Patterico-
    The Founders also made sure that the Constitution did not explicitly outlaw slavery as part of the “central … compromise” to make the nation happen. Eventually, however, we decided that was a bad idea and we are a better nation for the change.

    When two of the last five elections do not elevate the citizens’ choice to the only federal office for which they vote, it’s time to at least talk about whether there is a better way to elect a president.

    There are many ways besides direct election (although I do not rule out direct elections out of hand) that we might wisely elect a President. Talking about options isn’t a bad thing. Acting rashly is the only bad thing. Assuming what worked 240 years ago is the only format that will work today is also unwise. Sometimes, a change is required to keep the republic healthy.

    Joe Brancatelli

    Joe Brancatelli (f567d3)

  5. The Constitution provides rather detailed instructions on how a majority can attempt to amend the document. We shouldn’t attempt to dissuade those willing to put time and effort into promulgating such an educational effort. Especially not when the effort would hinder and distract from Blue Wall infrastructure repair.

    Rick Ballard (bca473)

  6. You could only have direct election by popular vote if there was a national voter registration system with a federally-run electoral process.

    Our current state-by-state hodgepodge has differing standards for voter identification, verification, and enforcement. So today if CA and IL decided to let illegal immigrants vote, or simply allow fraud to occur to boost votes for the Democrat candidates, then those votes would go into the national pool counting toward the total. These votes would poison the well, so to speak.

    The electoral college is a kind of quarantine to prevent bad actors in individual states from impacting the nation as a whole. It allows states to continue to govern their own electoral processes.

    El Gipper (2c1f33)

  7. I wouldn’t mind getting rid of the actual Electoral College, the body that meets in mid-December, whose members are constitutionally entitled to vote however they like, and whose physical votes have to be delivered to Congress and counted. That’s an anachronism.
    Replace it with a virtual EC, with each state assigned a number of votes, to be distributed proportionally among the voters of that state (i.e. if a state has ten votes and 2 million people show up to vote in that state, then each person’s vote is worth 0.000005; if only 200,000 show up then each of their votes is worth 0.00005). That gets rid of faithless electors, and gives a voice to those stuck in permanent minority in their state, while preserving the balance of the states.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  8. The US Electoral College was always a peculiar animal from my perspective. Thanks for clarifying.

    JP (f1742c)

  9. Should also point out that if elections were determined by the popular vote then the candidates would campaign for it, and thus the results would not be the same as they are now. You can’t just take the actual vote, which resulted from campaigns designed to maximise results from the current system, and recount it a different way, as if everyone would have voted — or not voted — the same way no matter what the counting system was. That’s the same as assuming that people’s income would remain the same no matter what changes were made to the tax system.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  10. The Electoral College has been subjected to more proposed amendments than any other feature of the Constitution. It is the least objectionable alternative to the most people, and that’s why we still have it 240 years later.

    The states vote for President, the people don’t. They vote for Congress. That’s just how it is.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  11. @milhouse:Should also point out that if elections were determined by the popular vote then the candidates would campaign for it, and thus the results would not be the same as they are now.

    Not to mention recounts everywhere, all the time. There’s no point in suing to recount Texas or California, under the Electoral College.

    Why should the President be chosen by 50% + 1 voter? Why shouldn’t it be by a majority of states, weighted by population?

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  12. @Milhouse:Replace it with a virtual EC, with each state assigned a number of votes, to be distributed proportionally among the voters of that state (i.e. if a state has ten votes and 2 million people show up to vote in that state, then each person’s vote is worth 0.000005; if only 200,000 show up then each of their votes is worth 0.00005). That gets rid of faithless electors, and gives a voice to those stuck in permanent minority in their state, while preserving the balance of the states.

    This would hardly differ from the popular vote.

    But the states are free to change how they allocate electoral college votes. Some of them do it differently.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  13. Michael Moore is demagoguing and lying about the result (I know: big surprise). Here is a snipped from his rambling Facebook post:

    You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: “HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!” The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don’t. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he’s president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we’ll continue to have presidents we didn’t elect and didn’t want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there’s climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don’t want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the “liberal” position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above).

    Uh, no Mikey: Hillary Clinton will not win a majority, she will likely win a slight plurality. Right now, she is sitting at 47.7% of the vote. Almost 5% of the population voted for someone other than the two parties, and if you add up the GOP and Libertarian vote you will see there is not some majority that is for free college, free healthcare, and the rest of the left-wing wish list. Don’t let any lefties tell you otherwise.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  14. I expect any margin she may have would be due to California.

    Colonel Haiku (a7e08c)

  15. This would hardly differ from the popular vote.

    It would differ from the popular vote because it would preserve the balance of the states. Each state’s total vote would depend on its population, as it does now, not on its turnout, and the smaller states would still get the boost they do now.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  16. Yes, that explains it, but doesn’t ignore the fact that the electoral college makes a rural voter “more equal” than an urban citizen.

    ribbonaire (47833c)

  17. Yes, that explains it, but doesn’t ignore the fact that the electoral college makes a rural voter “more equal” than an urban citizen.

    No, it doesn’t. It does give smaller states a greater voice, in proportion to their populations, than the larger states. Why do you think that’s wrong?

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  18. I expect any margin she may have would be due to California.

    By far, Colonel. In fact, she’s going to end up winning three deep blue states, California, New York, and Illinois, by a combined total of 3.5 million votes.

    What do those three states have in common? They are all sending their corrupt Democrat politicians to jail in droves.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  19. The compromise that created the Electoral College deals with matters that nobody cares about anymore, and was designed originally to work in a way which never worked – and the U.S. constitution soon had to be amended – but it has its values.

    1) You never need a nationwide recount.

    2) States can run their own electoral systems

    3) There is an escape hatch for some things at least.

    4) It lowers the cost of campaigns by making only certain areas crucial – yet it is almost the same as the popular vote because it gives everyone an unfair advantage.

    It is still far from ideal, and the nomination process is broken (in one case it gave us a machine cadidate because opponents didn’t run, exceppt for the kind of leftwinger who likes to run every time in hopeless races, and in the otehr cases someone won by taking ridiculous positions not generally recoggnized by the most hard core members of the party aas ridiculous – and for all the upteen number of candidates nobody stood out))

    But one good thing about U.S. presidential campiagns is that they are so long.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  20. The electoral college is more than just a compromise between bit and small states.

    It was also a reflection on the ability of an urban power structure to manipulate large numbers of votes, so it gave a slight weight to candidates with wider appeal. Trump will likely end up with 30 states against 21 for Clinton, giving him 18 extra electoral votes for the 9 extra states. This didn’t matter this time (he will win 306-232 when it’s all done), but it is an intentional “tie-breaker” in very close popular vote elections.

    It also serves as a firewall against fraud. If the power in a state is sufficient to conceal fraud, they could manufacture many extra votes (some say Chicago ginned up a million bogus votes in 1960). Most of the time this does no good, as all you can do is win your state’s EVs, something you probably already have if you can do this with impunity. In a purely popular election, though, it could change the entire outcome.

    It makes recounts possible, since they only need to be done at the state level under a single set of rules. Imagine a really close election like Nixon-Kennedy 1960 as a national recount and the impossible mischief that would occur.

    Without the electoral college, our elections would have much less integrity, be focused entirely on cities, be subject to concentrated manipulation and information bias, and would be impossible to recount.

    No thank you.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. *big

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. Shorter: A purely popular vote election would resemble Washington State politics, where statewide offices are contested wholly in the Seattle metropolitan area, and closer races are subject to ballot stuffing by the King County machine.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  23. I saw a video once which described a president elected without the popular vote as the “wrong” outcome.

    The assumption that the popular vote *is* the right outcome was never actually explained.

    But it’s stuff like this that lead me to say that the states should break up and re-form into new federations. There’s just too much division in the current union for it to go on forever.

    scrubone (c3104f)

  24. 8. 13. The Milhouse system allows each state to:

    1) Set its voter eligibility rules the way it wants to. They used to differ between states, juat consider age.

    2) Adjusts the number of a state’s votes according to the last Census.

    3) Rounds the result, so that often recounts won’t matter, and when they do will affect only one Electoral vote per state.

    It allows for a certain amount of fizziness or uncertainty in the vote, or irregularities in the voting, to occur without that affecting the result.

    10. Milhouse (40ca7b) — 11/9/2016 @ 10:48 am

    Should also point out that if elections were determined by the popular vote then the candidates would campaign for it, and thus the results would not be the same as they are now. You can’t just take the actual vote, which resulted from campaigns designed to maximise results from the current system, and recount it a different way, as if everyone would have voted — or not voted — the same way no matter what the counting system was. That’s the same as assuming that people’s income would remain the same no matter what changes were made to the tax system.

    That is worth repeating.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  25. 21, Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/9/2016 @ 12:17 pm

    .The electoral college is more than just a compromise between bit and small states.

    It was also a reflection on the ability of an urban power structure to manipulate large numbers of votes, so it gave a slight weight to candidates with wider appeal.

    It wasn’t designed that way or for that reason. TRat just happened.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  26. Sammy,

    Like HELL. Go read Madison’s notes. Some were VERY concerned about urban machines.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. When electing Democrats, white smoke.

    When electing Republicans, black smoke.

    Pinandpuller (dd360c)

  28. There’s a post at volokh conspiracy today pointing out that the popular vote totals are a direct result of the electoral college, too, since nobody bothers to campaign in deep red or deep blue states. So winning the popular vote under the present system is irrelevant to democratic legitimacy, or should be.

    matt d (d4aa6f)

  29. Shorter: A purely popular vote election would resemble Washington State politics, where statewide offices are contested wholly in the Seattle metropolitan area, and closer races are subject to ballot stuffing by the King County machine.

    Or Nevada contests contested in Clark County.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  30. Like HELL. Go read Madison’s notes. Some were VERY concerned about urban machines.

    I’m with Kevin M on this one, Sammy.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  31. Oh: I should bring up my master plan for improving the electoral system:

    Assumption: It is bad for California that nobody bothers to campaign here, since nobody can realistically swing an election by doing so, and therefore nobody needs to cater to its needs.. Same goes for Texas and New York.

    It would be better for California if it doled out its electoral votes proportionally; it would get more attention that way. But it’d never do that unilaterally, because it would be bad for the Democrats. Same thing with Texas, but for Republicans.

    Solution: Set up a coalition of red/blue states carefully assembled to make the electoral vote totals as close to status quo as possible. Get them to agree to amend their constitutions, effective when all the other members do so too. Make it go into effect enough elections in the future that the benefits could realistically go either way.

    Everyone in the coalition is better off.

    ‘course, I’m dreaming. But that’s my idea.

    matt d (d4aa6f)

  32. 28. Thats the one thing Mexico gets right, though it only deviated from the PRI in 2000 and 2006. They have some FEC-counterpart official show up on TV at midnight to say who or in the case of 2006, too close to call, where upon Obrador had his 5 month sit-in and on inauguration, sent his PRD lackeys to sit in seats of legislators before they seated for the president’s inauguration.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  33. matt, its allright, all though I would reserve the 2 senate seat votes as the winner-takes votes, which for states like DC, WY and VT would be all 3.

    urbanleftbehind (5eecdb)

  34. Solution: Set up a coalition of red/blue states carefully assembled to make the electoral vote totals as close to status quo as possible. Get them to agree to amend their constitutions, effective when all the other members do so too. Make it go into effect enough elections in the future that the benefits could realistically go either way.

    I think that some years back we voted via referendum in California to immediately switch over to a proportional electoral vote allocation just as soon as a majority of the other states (by electoral votes) do so. Or did that referendum lose? I can’t really recall.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  35. BTW, the popular vote in this election was affected by the existence of the EC. There were many people, like myself or Patterico, who might have voted differently had our vote not been meaningless due to the EC system. In several states people were given a free choice to express their true feelings, rather than being caught in a dilemma of least-worst.

    I will bet that the LP and Mr McMullin did best in states where the EC outcome was certain. Had it been a flat national vote, many of those voters would have held their nose and voted for Trump, as many putative #NeverTrumpers did in battleground states.

    The polls failed this time because the model says that many undecideds and third-party voters will end up choosing between the D and R, but in this odd election, it was between Trump and not-Trump; Hillary was never a consideration.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  36. I think that some years back we voted via referendum in California to immediately switch over to a proportional electoral vote allocation just as soon as a majority of the other states (by electoral votes) do so. Or did that referendum lose? I can’t really recall.

    This is purely an attempt by urban political machines to grab power.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  37. @matt d: A bunch of states, including mine, have some such law on the books, that electors will be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote once a certain number of states have also agreed to do so.

    Gabriel Hanna (c791b9)

  38. Every time I hear somebody complain about the electoral college, I’m reminded of a story of JFK.
    After the 1960 campaign, JFK had the same thought that has gone through the minds of so many before and after .. do we really need this thing called an “electoral college” ?
    The story goes that he mentioned this to somebody who replied .. ‘the way it works now, it helps Democrats’ … and he left it alone.

    Neo (d1c681)

  39. I am vehemently opposed to states agreeing to vote their electors proportional to the *national* popular vote. My proposal was for california to send its votes in proportion to California’s vote totals, not the national. Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

    matt d (d4aa6f)

  40. I guess I could describe my proposal as Maine-style allocation. And also …. Nebraska? I’m too lazy to look it up.

    matt d (d4aa6f)

  41. Tout the national popular vote as basis for getting rid of the electoral college but check the numbers first. hillary won the national vote by 200,000. But take away crazy california where she won by 2,500,000 and corrupt new york where she won by 1,500,000 and Trump won the other 55, er, 48 states by 3,800,000. Nobody in those 48 states, maybe with the exception of maryland, connecticut and vermont would want to be governed by someone selected by new york or california.

    Jim Morgan (924893)

  42. 41. Indeed. And to Mr. Morgan’s point, the 2 senate seat votes of each state would go to that state’s winner, which would have been a 60 v. 42 buffer in this election for Trump.

    urbanleftbehind (a9ef6b)

  43. Hillary Could Win Popular Vote, Reviving Dangerous Arguments About Abolishing Electoral College

    Sure enough.

    Blitzer is already babbling about it- 5:30 PM, EST. The beast needs fed.

    “Feed Me!” – ‘Little Shop Of Horrors’ – 1960

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  44. @28.When electing Democrats, white smoke. When electing Republicans, black smoke.

    What is this mumbo-jumbo? Hillary is a Methodist. Trump a Presbyterian.

    “Bow your head with great respect and genuflect, genuflect, genuflect…- Tom Lehrer ‘The Vatican Rag’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  45. ugh big protest gathering at trump chicago

    happyfeet (ed77d3)

  46. Oh boy, Fox is reporting that the President-elect just called Nancy Pelosi to “talk about a jobs bill.” The only talk from him on that subject should be “it’s not a federal responsibility; let’s cut the corporate tax rate instead.” But watch him get suckered into supporting another “stimulus” bill.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  47. Alternate title:

    “Hillary!’s Legal Team Could Prevail Against Some Of Her Multiple Convictions On Appeal, Reviving Dangerous Arguments About Sentencing Reform.”

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  48. A couple of notes on the election…Trump leads in MI and AZ with all votes counted. If that holds, he would NOT have needed one of OH or FL. All pundits, as in ALL, were wrong about this.

    Evangelicals voted DJT 80-20. Roman Catholics? 52-45 for DJT. As an RC, I am disgusted. The rot amongst the Church leadership is a an excellent indicator of the cultural demise we are living. No truths. No standards.

    I await, with trepidation, the GOPe refusing to actually stand for traditional positions. Fine Bishops, they.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  49. Pelosi: I pray for Trump’s success. She urged Republicans to work with Democrats to fund roads and jobs.

    Might be interesting. Let’s say a jobs bill were to be too huge to read. You have to vote on it to see what’s in it.
    Might not a wall be considered infrastructure for legislation purposes?

    papertiger (979789)

  50. CNN always seems to find illegal immigrants on street corners to interview about their worries of being caught.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. Make book: first contactor to put bid in on building ‘The Wall’… Halliburton.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  52. Just add 2 lanes each direction to I.10/I.8 and then commandeer the materials.

    urbanleftbehind (a9ef6b)

  53. CNN always seems to find illegal immigrants on street corners to interview about their worries of being caught.

    DCSCA (797bc0) — 11/9/2016 @ 3:37 pm

    Isn’t it just amazing how bright and spacious those shadows the illegals are hiding in are?

    Steve57 (0b1dac)

  54. I guess I could describe my proposal as Maine-style allocation. And also …. Nebraska? I’m too lazy to look it up.

    Neither Maine nor Nebraska have a system that is anything like proportional representation. People who call it that only display their own ignorance on the subject, much like those who call PR a “parliamentary system”. ME and NE have all but two of their electors chosen in single-winner first-past-the-post elections in each congressional district. If someone gets 49% in each of NE’s four CDs, they get none of the state’s six electors. That’s nothing like proportional.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  55. it’s like the grotto at viscaya, steve,

    narciso (d1f714)

  56. CNN always seems to find illegal immigrants on street corners to interview about their worries of being caught.

    Nah, they find people who were born here or came across legally and convince them that they are in danger of being deported. A lefty friend of mine posted about how her young son asked her if they were in danger of being deported (the family has been here for generations) now that Trump has won, and she considered it some sign of the sheer terror that await them. I replied that I think it’s a sign that her son has been exposed to unreasonable hysteria and shame on whoever is putting these ideas in his head (and it is most certainly not the President-elect or any of his followers).

    JVW (6e49ce)

  57. Make book: first contactor to put bid in on building ‘The Wall’… Halliburton.

    Sheldon Adelson gets to choose the contractor as a thank you.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  58. Chris Matthews is spitting nails.

    The Wall will need carpenters.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  59. You must watch ‘All In’ with Chris Hayes.

    It is truly hilarious. It’s everybody’s fault — but Hillary’s.

    MSNBC’s new logo: 🙁

    “This ship can’t sink. She’s unsinkable!” – Captain Smith [Laurence Naismith] ‘A Night To Remember’ 1958

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  60. I understand the purpose of this post but some consideration should be given to the silliness (or perhaps utter stupidity) of proposing modification or elimination of the EC when this election provided additional evidence the Blue Wall to be even more of a fictional construct than did the slaughter of progressive Democrats in the ’10 and ’14 elections. The progressive geriarchs overseeing the collapse of the progressive nightmare can count high enough to realize the futility of pursuing this nonsense as a policy aim any sooner than 2024 and no amount of babbling from the discredited media or shrieking from the also discredited indoctrination centers is going to change the basic arithmetic involved.

    The ruin done to the Democrat Party by Obama and Clinton isn’t going to be repaired any time soon.

    Take a hard look at the absence of a farm system in order to make informed guesses as to when repair might even be started.

    Rick Ballard (bca473)

  61. logic is not their long suit rick, I guess they will try for a more palatable manque, they might run clem since he is a southern in but name, btw, are you ever returning to maguire’s place, or are we just too deplorable for you,

    narciso (d1f714)

  62. Take a hard look at the absence of a farm system in order to make informed guesses as to when repair might even be started.

    Yeah, but they demonstrated in 2008 that they can put up a green and unworthy candidate who has loads of personal charisma and ride that to victory, so don’t make the mistake of counting them out. I expect Kamala Harris to be front-and-center as the face of a younger more progressive party.

    JVW (6e49ce)

  63. “It does give smaller states a greater voice, in proportion to their populations, than the larger states. Why do you think that’s wrong?”

    Because the people vote for the President, not the State. The State have their own representation. And in fact the Senator from Alaska has as much vote as one from California. That’s kinda crazy in some ways – but if you throw them that bone – don’t give me an additional bonus bone in the Electoral College.

    ribbonaire (47833c)

  64. ah yes, kamala, is a two for, and ‘easy on the eyes’ fwiw, now the former first consort might try to edge her out,

    narciso (d1f714)

  65. And like clockwork…Leader McConnell has repudiated using Reid’s filibuster nuclear bomb to confirm judges and justices.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  66. Because the people vote for the President, not the State.

    The people of the states vote for the president. If their state legislature decides that’s what they should do. A state legislature could decide not to have an election, and that it should choose the electors, or that the governor should appoint them, or they should be chosen by lottery or by some contest. Tell me why you think that’s not how it should be.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  67. Remember that these are the United States. Not “we the people of America”, but “we the people of the united states of America”.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  68. mcconnell’s a phenomenally slimy piece of “s” as they say

    if Ashley Judd wasn’t such a neurotic stupid coward he’d have been pig-food many moons ago

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  69. everyone on the whole planet understands this election was a repudiation of the status quo

    everyone *except* slimy chamberpot mitch and pervy mitt romney’s slicked-up boy toy paul ryan

    why is that?

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  70. I could see Harris, but they’ll probably try to rush Bel Edwards and Cooper (should he survive recount). They are actually in deeper poop in non-Illinois Midwest than they are in the South.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  71. I don’t think of mcturtle much, and when I do,. . .what was the question,

    narciso (d1f714)

  72. cooper, who again, yes bel edwards might be given a media makeup,

    narciso (d1f714)

  73. NC prospective gov, up 4k on McCrory.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  74. now i’m confuzzled, it went to trump and burr, yet cooper slid through?

    narciso (d1f714)

  75. JVW,

    No one can deny the impact of Pyrrhus’ Obama’s ‘victory’ upon his party and I have complete confidence in progressives’ ability to elevate someone else of his stature far beyond their innate incapability. Their problem lies in the concentration of their A/AA clubs within the crumbling confines of the walls of the True Blue Hell state legislatures controlled by progressive geriarchs who haven’t ever had a new idea.

    I would never say the Democrat Party is dead but it’s going to be resting until the current geriarchy sheds their mortal coil and heads for the outer darkness.

    narciso,

    I have no reason to return.

    Rick Ballard (bca473)

  76. So far, yes. NC is weird like that…also a 2 pct. discrepancy between Romney (50.1) and McCrory (52%) in 2012, some say to poor ballot design, I say because anti.Mormon factor.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  77. true they had razorback, a southern apparatchik who they elevated to eminence gris, then zaphod, the teacher’s lounge agitator, the next candidate will be barely coherent, then again they made celebrities of doc brown and red squaw,

    narciso (d1f714)

  78. If it’s lack of coherence, maybe one of the mile high boys, Hick or Bennet.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  79. this was still a bizarre election, consider arpaio, the desert’s answer to nick navarro, was subject to enough lawfare to bring him down, yet trump carried arizona, and of course maverick

    narciso (d1f714)

  80. so the spiccoli coalition gained ground, despite bluntman showing the degree of impairment, that heavy use entails,

    narciso (d1f714)

  81. I’m willing to compromise. We can allocate electoral votes by county.

    1 EV to each county.

    Sounds fair.

    NJRob (f6d275)

  82. McCain is the devil they know. Ki_patrick might have been instant blue dog. Trump underperformed there, considering el muro.

    urbanleftbehind (847a06)

  83. And like clockwork…Leader McConnell has repudiated using Reid’s filibuster nuclear bomb to confirm judges and justices.

    Wait . . . even after Reid did it?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  84. twenty years ago, if someone seriously proposed getting rid of the incandescent bulb and gay marriage, they might have looked at them funny, within a decade the first happened, and in even less time, we moved to transgenderism, the amount of sheer delusion that can be brought about, is not encouraging,

    narciso (d1f714)

  85. I saw that story. McConnell was just being coy. He did not say yes and he did not say no. More like “We don’t need to, to repeal Obamacare”.

    nk (dbc370)

  86. Clarity.
    “We don’t need to nuke the filibuster in order to repeal Obamacare.”

    nk (dbc370)

  87. McConnell has the ’18 lineup card under glass on his desk top. He’d like another five or seven players on the squad and getting weak Dems to filibuster isn’t a bad way to achieve the goal. Schumer has fifteen potentially weak seats to try and protect in ’18. It’s a different ball game than it was for Reid’s last two years.

    Rick Ballard (bca473)

  88. I’m willing to compromise. We can allocate electoral votes by county.

    1 EV to each county.

    Sounds fair.

    Not at all fair, and almost certainly unconstitutional. The difference between the states of the USA and the counties in a state is what I wrote above: the USA is the united states. It is their creature, and they had the right to negotiate whatever terms they liked. States are not creatures of the counties; quite the opposite, counties are creatures of the states. They are arbitrary subdivisions that states make and unmake at will. No state is “the united counties of xxxxx”. Therefore the 14th amendment forbids states from giving people in smaller counties more power than people in larger ones.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  89. The Senate Republicans desperately need new leadership.

    Colonel Haiku (d4a566)

  90. “We don’t need to nuke the filibuster in order to repeal Obamacare.”

    So he was talking about the legislative filibuster, which Reid carefully did not threaten. It makes perfect sense that he shouldn’t get rid of it. The Ds value it and are likely to keep it even when they get a majority, so it seems imprudent to get rid of it now and be left wanting it later. As far as I can tell the only one proposing getting rid of it is Walker.

    The filibuster on SC nominations is a different story, because Reid already threatened it. That’s the problem with these prisoner’s game provisions; once one side threatens it, there’s no reason for the other side to keep it.

    Milhouse (40ca7b)

  91. I think that if the Republicans allow the Democrats to pull a “Bolton” on Trump’s appointments, there will be Hell toupee (sic). Trump will not enjoy being told no.

    nk (dbc370)

  92. How many conservatives in California did not bother to even vote if their ballot had no conservative option? With the inability to write-in?

    Loren (66de82)

  93. @Patterico:Wait . . . even after Reid did it?

    Of course he did. Party of Stupid. This is how we got President Trump.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  94. ‘The people of the states vote for the president. If their state legislature decides that’s what they should do. A state legislature could decide not to have an election, and that it should choose the electors, or that the governor should appoint them, or they should be chosen by lottery or by some contest. Tell me why you think that’s not how it should be.”

    I’ll try once again – I’m of the mind that in a democracy, the citizen’s votes should count. I think you’re defending the idea of a republic. I’m not. For the President, I’d like to see a straight, pure democratic institution. Giving a smaller state a bigger vote is a little like Affirmative Action.

    ribbonaire (47833c)

  95. More like “We don’t need to, to repeal Obamacare”.

    Yeah, but they do, actually. We had this discussion earlier. They can gut ObamaCare and make it unworkable, and take blame for that — but they can’t repeal it and add the necessary free-market solutions that could get health care working again. We have decades’ worth of government interference to unravel.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  96. I’ll try once again – I’m of the mind that in a democracy, the citizen’s votes should count. I think you’re defending the idea of a republic. I’m not. For the President, I’d like to see a straight, pure democratic institution. Giving a smaller state a bigger vote is a little like Affirmative Action.

    It’s integral to the compromise that the smaller states secured in return for their agreement to ratify the Constitution and join the Union. As explained in the post. You can’t redo the deal now, and anyway they wouldn’t let you. Nor should they.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  97. “It’s integral to the compromise that the smaller states secured in return for their agreement to ratify the Constitution and join the Union. As explained in the post. You can’t redo the deal now, and anyway they wouldn’t let you. Nor should they.”

    I understand, but that doesn’t address my argument that it makes citizens of a smaller state have a bigger vote than, say, my vote. Unfair? Yes. Again, Affirmative Action for smaller states. I could make an argument for the contrary, that the citizen in a more powerful state, more influential should have a bigger vote.

    I could make that argument – but I wouldn’t agree with it either. One man, one vote. Women too. Somewhere in our republic we should have a straight democracy. BTW – the Electoral College is supposed to prevent unqualified wankers from ascending to the highest office of the land.

    “The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single state; but it will require other talents and a different kind of merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of president of the United States. Such a man stands on the verge of being inaugurated, but the process established by our Founders has not been completed.” Now that sounds like their talking about Trump – except for the “confidence of the whole union” part – which neither candidate fits. I wouldn’t mind another election altogether – take a month, but disqualify both. (and yeah, the Founders never used the word wanker, so I apologize for a little interpretation.) BTW – Trump as an outsider isn’t enough to disqualify him – I think that’s the only thing I like about him. But he has a very serious personality disorder – a disorder that above all makes him ill-suited as a state leader. (it even makes him unsuitable as an Uber driver). And he doesn’t just have a disorder, but a remarkable, exceptional example of it. And one that is nearly indistinguishable from a psychopath.

    ribbonaire (47833c)

  98. This is the first time the winner of the popular vote has lost, without the complication or the distraction of the election being thrown into the House of Represenatives, a contested election \or allegations of fraud.

    In 1824, there wasn’t reallt a popular vote and the vote was split 3 or 4 ways anyway.

    In 1876, there was a whole conestetd elecction.

    In 1888, there was an allegation of fraud.

    In the year 2000, we had the dostraction of Florida.

    In 1960 it actually wasn’t really possible to determine who won the popuar vote because Kennedy wasn’t on the ballot in all 50 states. They made a calculation where he was the winner of the popular vote, but it’s faulty.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  99. What hapopened wwa staht teh Democratic voite was far more concentrated than the Trump vote. Californaia actuallyt did not have its proper proportion of wasted Trump votes.

    Sammy Finkelman (643dcd)

  100. this is so cool

    and truly beautiful too

    you just need some kind of cream liquor to drizzle on top and when you plate i think to be keeping more with the tradition of the original

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  101. 21, Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/9/2016 @ 12:17 pm

    The electoral college is more than just a compromise between big and small states.

    It was also a reflection on the ability of an urban power structure to manipulate large numbers of votes, so it gave a slight weight to candidates with wider appeal.

    26. Sammy Finkelman (643dcd) — 11/9/2016 @ 12:24 pm

    It wasn’t designed that way or for that reason. TRat just happened.

    27. Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/9/2016 @ 12:33 pm

    Sammy,

    Like HELL. Go read Madison’s notes.

    Are you talking about his notes on the constitutional convention? I do remember somebody proposed the president be elected by popular vote. I don’t have the notes. Can you point me to something? All I have is the Federalist Papers, mostly.

    Some were VERY concerned about urban machines.

    Maybe something a little bit different, but with maybe similar results, bur the current system (popular vote for electors and the general ticket system where all Electors from state are elected together on one slate) was not what was originally planned.

    It couldn’t be political machines exactly that they were concerned about because the first one, I think, was founded by Aaron Burr in New York City in 1799. He took an organization founded in 1789 – the Society of St. Tammany or something like that, which was evidently just something for some men to get together and dress up as Indians and had no other purpose, and used it as a nucleus to build his organization. He bought some land, and divided it into tiny pieces and arranged for many men to buy these tiny plots so that they could qualify to vote as property owners. In 1787 nobody coudld have had that specifically in mind.

    The original idea was that theer would be an intermediate body that did the actual electing of the preisdent. In Federalist number 45, in fact, Madison says the satte legislatures will “perhaps, in most cases” determine who will be the president, which must eans select the Electors maybe from among their number. And Hamilton goes into a whole exposition on the method of electing the president in Federalist number 68.

    Now there are some elements to the process of electing the presidnt that only make sense according to the original system. For instance, no Elector could hold any office in the federal government. That’s obviously to keep these thhingss separate and prevent somebody organizing who won. Second, the elctors would have to vote for two people, one of whom who was not an inhabitant of the same state as themselves. So one might be someone popular or powerful in one state, let’s say he Governor, but the other would have to be some kind of national figure. This provision was carried over int the 12th amendment, ppassed and ratified in 1803 and 1804, where it doesn’t really have any ppurpose, and uf you say it does it’s not the same purpose as originally, where it was a device to collect votes for someone of honor and stature. They also voted by secret ballot for the same reason.

    The whole original system was designed to prevent campaigns for president.

    Sammy Finkelman (db3b66)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1013 secs.