How does this differ from affirmative action?
58
Seems the one wild card not mentioned is the founders realization of the power of the "mob" circa 1776. The cities would always produce extreme social experimentation establishing the nations culture disproportionality if it went too far. I think it went too far, hence your dissatisfied stance that apple pie has lost its allure. I think not
15
One of the very best aspects of the Trump Administration will be the End of Hypocrisy As We Know It.
Let me explain.
We're all used to people making arguments for what they want, and we all like to think people need to be 'consistent'. This is like 'science' and 'reason'. But what if all that kinda stuff is overrated? Elite? Effete? You know?
The next administration won't bother with consistency & rational argument. It will be Government By Id. Common sense. Suck it up, Buttercup.
Electoral College? Hey, it got the result we wanted - so it's a good thing. Otherwise, it would've been a bad thing.
Let me explain.
We're all used to people making arguments for what they want, and we all like to think people need to be 'consistent'. This is like 'science' and 'reason'. But what if all that kinda stuff is overrated? Elite? Effete? You know?
The next administration won't bother with consistency & rational argument. It will be Government By Id. Common sense. Suck it up, Buttercup.
Electoral College? Hey, it got the result we wanted - so it's a good thing. Otherwise, it would've been a bad thing.
23
The flip argument is that our cultural awareness of the country is too heavily skewed towards the people that live in California and the east coast Beltway. Our news, sitcoms, and entertainment shows rarely get outside this bubble (did the average American even know there was a New Mexico before Walter White started cooking meth?) Bill Clinton recognized this during the campaign and he was given the Old Guy treatment. As deplorable as Trump is the democratic party needed to learn this lesson
81
Manipulating the Electoral College through Breitbart and other rightwing media through VIRAL LIES is the current tool that guarantees Republican election wins at local, state, federal level. Democrats have been much too trusting, un-skeptical and need a strong and clever media opposition. And a wide array of strategies & means.
145
Land is cheaper in rural areas maybe more people should move out of their cramped apartments and telecommute.
49
The real problem is in the winner take all system used in 48 states. Why would a Democrat bother voting in Texas or a Republican in California? This encourages voter apathy. This could be easily fixed by adopting the system used by the two states that use a congressional district system (Maine and Nebraska). That these states exist and use this system means one does not need a complicated Constitutional amendment. But the current EC system benefits one party and that party now controls 33 state legislatures. But it could be done if some of the larger states like California and Texas agreed to adopt the district system. It should be national priority. The Founders would support a rethink on this. They fully expected that the Constitution would be reviewed and necessarily revamped to reflect changing reality. And reality has changed bigly.
121
This is all true but it came down to shocking razor thin differences in MI, WI, & Penn. many reasons but inexplicable.
18
The US is a federation of states. The 'system' favors states. It is absurd to argue for unequal Senate representation among states in a federal republic.
64
Here is the executive summary:
1) Blue state urban liberals are the greatest contributors to the federal government.
2) Red state "personal responsibility" rural communities are the neediest and biggest takers, extending the entitled open palm of one hand and the contemptuous middle finger of the other.
3) Red state rural communities get to dictate how we must live our lives because of a mad electoral system.
1) Blue state urban liberals are the greatest contributors to the federal government.
2) Red state "personal responsibility" rural communities are the neediest and biggest takers, extending the entitled open palm of one hand and the contemptuous middle finger of the other.
3) Red state rural communities get to dictate how we must live our lives because of a mad electoral system.
381
Complaining that the Electoral College is "unfair" will change nothing
Instead vote, in your State, for legislators that support to appoint electors to the electoral college proportional to votes received by the candidates, not by winner takes all.
Currently only two States, Maine and Nebraska do so.
Note that both are rural, but liberal States.
Fixing the system State by State is far easier than by a Constitutional Amendment,
So go to work. Thank you
Instead vote, in your State, for legislators that support to appoint electors to the electoral college proportional to votes received by the candidates, not by winner takes all.
Currently only two States, Maine and Nebraska do so.
Note that both are rural, but liberal States.
Fixing the system State by State is far easier than by a Constitutional Amendment,
So go to work. Thank you
95
What this article fails to acknowledge is that part of the reason we populated those rural states was also in order to take control of the land from the Native Americans. We created major incentives (like free land!) to convince pioneers to move out to those areas, settle them, and thereby drive out the Native Americans.
This disproportionate representation in Congress continues that incentive by sending disproportionate resources to the rural areas, thereby keeping these areas populated and under American control more than 150 years later.
If we eliminate the electoral college and move towards a truly popular vote (one person = one vote), the balance of power skews towards the heavily populated cities, on the coasts and by the lakes. As that happens, resources start to be focused on the cities and rural areas begin to decline into abject poverty. Escaping the poverty, these people move to...you guessed it, the cities!
But what happens with all that abandoned land in the middle? We could, you know, return it to the Native Americans that we stole it from; but that would be relinquishing power.
So, we keep the electoral college, the imbalance of power, and the rural areas continue to live on the handouts from the richer states. Can't get more democratic than that!
This disproportionate representation in Congress continues that incentive by sending disproportionate resources to the rural areas, thereby keeping these areas populated and under American control more than 150 years later.
If we eliminate the electoral college and move towards a truly popular vote (one person = one vote), the balance of power skews towards the heavily populated cities, on the coasts and by the lakes. As that happens, resources start to be focused on the cities and rural areas begin to decline into abject poverty. Escaping the poverty, these people move to...you guessed it, the cities!
But what happens with all that abandoned land in the middle? We could, you know, return it to the Native Americans that we stole it from; but that would be relinquishing power.
So, we keep the electoral college, the imbalance of power, and the rural areas continue to live on the handouts from the richer states. Can't get more democratic than that!
94
Time for an amendment that states that any state representing less than 1% of the U.S. population must merge with an adjacent state and any state with greater than 3% of the U.S. population must subdivide within ten years of the census so indicating. This would at least get us close to equal representation in the Senate and the Electoral college. Do we really need a North and a South Dakota?
19
You know that it takes 2/3 of the states to ratify a Constitutional Amendment, right? Why even bother talking about things that have zero chance of happening?
40
"Rural America?" Do you think we in the Heartland go to market in covered wagons in order to sell the fish we caught or the vegetables we grew?
What became of the Melting Pot? The concept that we were all in this beautiful country together?
Hillary Clinton lost because she is a warmonger, and we will no longer play their game. We, the Rural People, the Plain Ones, have had enough. Someone who calls fellow Americans "deplorable" is truly despicable.
United we stand. Divided we fall.
What became of the Melting Pot? The concept that we were all in this beautiful country together?
Hillary Clinton lost because she is a warmonger, and we will no longer play their game. We, the Rural People, the Plain Ones, have had enough. Someone who calls fellow Americans "deplorable" is truly despicable.
United we stand. Divided we fall.
57
Trump maligned all sorts of people repeatedly, yet you are fixated on one thing that Hillary said. Get real.
213
Are we? All in this together? I'm trying to grasp onto your sentiment but am having a hard time with this line...."Someone who calls fellow Americans "deporable" is truly despicable". I would certainly call the KKK despicable. And they're your fellow Trump supporters. Gladly, madly, giddly, they are Trump supporters. A man who has denigrated so, so many Americans in his tweets and in his campaign and in his elevation of full on racists to his White house is your true champion. That's what I'm hearing from you. Divided we are. This will not be pretty for so many Americans. And I'm 99% they will be much darker in color than you, a different religion than you, a different gender than you, a different sexual orientation than you, and will likely never even interact with you in any way, except to suffer the consequences of your vote to disenfranchise them.
89
Americans cling to our traditional form of government because we're afraid of what might happen if we disturb the social order. The last time someone decided to change up the government, 3/4 of a million Americans died.
15
If the Electoral College did NOT include two votes for each state based on Senate representation, that is, if the electoral college had only a number of electors for each state equal to each state’s numbers in the House of Representatives, the outcome would have been the same in all presidential elections in the past century except two: In 1916 Woodrow Wilson would have lost by one electoral vote, 218-217, and in 2000 George W. Bush would have lost by fourteen electoral votes, 225-211, even after carrying Florida; Bush would have lost the electoral college as well as the popular vote, and the 2000 election would not have taken its way to the Supreme Court where it was decided by one vote, giving new meaning to the principle, "one man, one vote."
If anyone wants to check my math, it is easy. The Electoral College outcomes are here among other places:
http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
To see what the outcome would have been based solely on proportional representation, just take the total for each candidate and subtract a number equal to two times the number of states (count D.C. as if a state) the candidate carried. The grand total will be 436 instead of 538.
If anyone wants to check my math, it is easy. The Electoral College outcomes are here among other places:
http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
To see what the outcome would have been based solely on proportional representation, just take the total for each candidate and subtract a number equal to two times the number of states (count D.C. as if a state) the candidate carried. The grand total will be 436 instead of 538.
28
Hail from the great red empire! Based on the level of xenophobia in these comments, you make Donald Trump look downright inviting! I voted for Clinton and so did a lot of other folks in the so-called red states. I don't think geography and antiquated voting systems are the problem: it's a lack of candidates. Setting up straw men like McConnell and Ryan so you can knock them down as "typical" of the red state mentality doesn't explain Harry Reid or make Hilary more palatable. Perhaps the Democrats should spend more time and effort trying to connect with their constituents as opposed to using stereotypes to explain their failure.
67
SHOCKING NEWS!
There are people living between NYC and L.A..
They voted.
Hillary lost.
Trump won.
To quote an outgoing POTUS...""You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election."
I totally agree with Mr Obama on this point.
His party (to which I used to belong) lost.
Disclaimer - (I did NOT support Trump OR Hillary.)
Are there any adults in left that party anymore?
There are people living between NYC and L.A..
They voted.
Hillary lost.
Trump won.
To quote an outgoing POTUS...""You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election."
I totally agree with Mr Obama on this point.
His party (to which I used to belong) lost.
Disclaimer - (I did NOT support Trump OR Hillary.)
Are there any adults in left that party anymore?
48
Your post is correct but this article is about the disconnect between the popular and Electoral College votes. Trump "won," but only because of the disproportionate power of small-state residents.
94
Lest we forget, the District of Columbia, with no Senators and 1 non-voting seat in the House, has a greater population than Vermont and Wyoming!
And Puerto Rico, also with no Senators and 1 non-voting seat in the House, has a greater population than 21 States! Neither have electoral college votes!
And Puerto Rico, also with no Senators and 1 non-voting seat in the House, has a greater population than 21 States! Neither have electoral college votes!
117
For what it's worth, the three Virgin Islands have no votes either.
20
Since 1961, when the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, D.C. has had 3 votes in the Electoral College.
12
New York's "beloved" Senator Clinton lost almost all Upstate counties in the 2016 primaries to Bernie Sanders; only the counties with a large urban center favored her. That was a bellwether that the DNC should have been paying attention to. She managed to repeat that remarkable feat again during the election. Either those rural folk are ingrates with poor memories, or Clinton didn't do anything substantial for them during her Senate tenure except nod her head empathetically while on her "listening tours". Her stint as Senator from New York was meant solely to build a Wall Street war chest and have another item to check off on her resume.
55
Given that we aren't going to change the Senate (and I even sort of get why it is the way it is), one big way to ameliorate this problem would be to increase the size of the House. Currently the size of the House is fixed by an act of Congress in the 1920s. That might have worked then, but now, we have a system where if a California resident is to be equally represented in the House as a Wyoming resident, California would need 66 representatives (13 more than they they have now) and this is before you get into the fact that Wyoming is already way over-represented in the Senate and Electoral College. We already reapportion House seats based on every Census, it makes no sense not to also increase or decrease the size of the House, as necessary, such that the smallest state isn't overrpresented.
70
Let's not forget about the 672,000 people living in Washington DC. Double the size of Wyoming's population. 0 senators. 1 house member. And a population that knows the most about what actually works (or not) in government.
Where is their voice?
Where is their voice?
108
They know the most about waste and connections, that's about it.
14
But before taking on the electoral college with rebellious rurals crying 'tyranny of the majority', How about we start with a simple law requiring everyone actually vote?
Only if all citizens are required to perform this minimum civic duty can we actually know where the nation stands.
As it stands now, it seems the disproportionate influence is by a minority 'rage machine' manufactured by persistent propaganda.
The 'hatred of Hillary' meme was entirely manufactured & intentionally set ablaze among a certain activist group of limbaugh-listening red-statists that only slightly tip the national destiny.
Let's require that the rest of folks actually pay attention & register their position. Only then can we have an honest vote.
Only if all citizens are required to perform this minimum civic duty can we actually know where the nation stands.
As it stands now, it seems the disproportionate influence is by a minority 'rage machine' manufactured by persistent propaganda.
The 'hatred of Hillary' meme was entirely manufactured & intentionally set ablaze among a certain activist group of limbaugh-listening red-statists that only slightly tip the national destiny.
Let's require that the rest of folks actually pay attention & register their position. Only then can we have an honest vote.
73
The whining and victimization from the right are truly amazing given how much they disproportionately get and take.
116
No, not really true. The apportionment of electoral votes means: rural Americans get the same electoral votes, on average, that urban voters do. What happened was a quirk - California and New York felt -- after apportionment -- especially strongly about Clinton. The Electoral College does not take into account when states feel especially strongly. But the same could have happened in rural America -- it could have gone 100 percent Trump, swamping the popular vote. It didn't. Partly because Trump campaigned for the real system we have, not a nonexistent system built out of self pity.
23
Perhaps if Sec Clinton gave a damn about all the irredeemable deplorables who found her habits of selling out the Sate Dept and sending 650,000+ emails to Anthony Weiner's computer a little distasteful, she would have made them feel a little included.
Since Hillary had been in politics around 40 years, didn't she understand how the electoral college worked?
Hillary chose to totally ignore some of the states she assumed would vote for her and watched them (and their electoral votes) go to Trump. Arrogance.
Had Hillary won over 270 electoral votes and Trump the popular vote, would her supporters be feeling sorry for Trump? Or would they be giving everyone Electoral College lessons? Screams of "Racist! Racist!" are getting a little old.
Since Hillary had been in politics around 40 years, didn't she understand how the electoral college worked?
Hillary chose to totally ignore some of the states she assumed would vote for her and watched them (and their electoral votes) go to Trump. Arrogance.
Had Hillary won over 270 electoral votes and Trump the popular vote, would her supporters be feeling sorry for Trump? Or would they be giving everyone Electoral College lessons? Screams of "Racist! Racist!" are getting a little old.
34
The systems has built in checks and balances. It seems like if a party gets a candidate that has broad appeal, they can win regardless of party. The broad appeal is how we will keep this republic one for all the people and not just for rural or city-dwellers. The work is to find candidates that support policies that most people can support. Over my years of voting, I am seen both Republicans and Democrats elected. Of course, we want our preferred candidate to win. But, as we teach our children, you don't always win and it is good we don't. Character is built in individuals, groups, parties, and nations when we can both experience wins and losses. Clearly, it is character building time for the Democrats. And only a matter of time before the universe declares character-building time for the Republicans. We live in an universe that doles out disappointments very equitably.
17
Just more whining from the neo-liberals. Instead of blaming Hillary it's blame Comey, third party voters, electoral college, Russian hackers, bla, bla, bla.
Electoral college or no electoral college, if the Democrats know what's good for them they better clean house and jettison the Clintonites that are still running the show! If they don't, this registered Dem and the other registered Dems I know are going to change party affiliation.
Hillary, whose main achievement in all her years in public office was to funnel bucket-loads of "Pay-To-Play" Biz to the Foundation, found herself, in the final stretch, struggling to establish her credibility and "connect" with a significant segment of registered Dems who, like myself, couldn't get past the stench of deceit and blind ambition in this most despicable, sanctimonious, fundamentally dishonest candidate. Well, so much for “inevitability!”
For the Clintons the chickens finally came home to roost. FINALLY!!!
They’re finished in politics and their progeny, Chelsea, will not be groomed for a political career. Now she can go run the Foundation. Ha!
Don’t feel sorry for them. Assuming they don’t end up in prison, these are people who will never have to worry about where the next rent check is coming from or whether they can afford decent health care or put food on the table. In reality, the Clintons are the deplorables.
I just love that all the brilliant minds at the Times are eating crow, choking on feathers and beaks.
Mangia!
Electoral college or no electoral college, if the Democrats know what's good for them they better clean house and jettison the Clintonites that are still running the show! If they don't, this registered Dem and the other registered Dems I know are going to change party affiliation.
Hillary, whose main achievement in all her years in public office was to funnel bucket-loads of "Pay-To-Play" Biz to the Foundation, found herself, in the final stretch, struggling to establish her credibility and "connect" with a significant segment of registered Dems who, like myself, couldn't get past the stench of deceit and blind ambition in this most despicable, sanctimonious, fundamentally dishonest candidate. Well, so much for “inevitability!”
For the Clintons the chickens finally came home to roost. FINALLY!!!
They’re finished in politics and their progeny, Chelsea, will not be groomed for a political career. Now she can go run the Foundation. Ha!
Don’t feel sorry for them. Assuming they don’t end up in prison, these are people who will never have to worry about where the next rent check is coming from or whether they can afford decent health care or put food on the table. In reality, the Clintons are the deplorables.
I just love that all the brilliant minds at the Times are eating crow, choking on feathers and beaks.
Mangia!
45
I'm glad you're enjoying this. Hope it was worth it. We all payed and will pay dearly for your smug enjoyment, I promise you.
91
You know that if Republicans had won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, things would have changed. If not the first time in 2000, then for sure this time.
41
It is not urban vs rural disparity that causes the imbalance. It's big state vs small state. Look at Rhode Island, virtually all urban. The founding fathers did not envision that some states would have 50 to 60 times the population of others.
6
Have you ever been to Rhode Island? All urban you say?
14
Red states are moochers.
62
Anomalous results are possible with one person, one voter. For example, 49 states could favor one candidate and yet the other might win the popular election by one vote. Any method you use has its limitations.
5
I see. So I guess you don't favor one person, one vote when voting for Governor? Or Senator? Or School Board? Or anything else?
Literally every other elective office in the nation, except for President is decided on the basis of one person, one vote. Where are all these "anomalous results" you speak of?
Literally every other elective office in the nation, except for President is decided on the basis of one person, one vote. Where are all these "anomalous results" you speak of?
29
the word slavery is not even mentioned in this story.
29
Badger's arguments appear to be advanced to de-legitimize Clinton's defeat. However not all Democratic voters are Democrats, whether urban or rural. Nor are all Republican voters Republican, even in rural locales. The county result reporting is clearly not adequately precise to represent the distribution of votes for Clinton into rural America, and the NY Times should have (by now) created a graphic showing the distribution of Red/Blue votes by percentage & density, rather than county victories. This would have demonstrated that a lot of Clinton's 63M+ votes came from rural communities, actually, and that a lot of Trump's 61M+ votes came from urban communities. Clinton sustained a significant Never Trump vote that may easily total over 2-3 million. In this case, were Trump not so plainly flawed as to draw these protest votes, Clinton may well have lost the popular vote AND the election overall. Unfortunately, Clinton's loss was drawn from Clinton's policies, moreso than the structure of the Electoral College.
9
I think the NY Times would like to dissolve the constitution and instead of a 'limited democratic republic' institute a 'democracy'. In the end, such as they want, would no longer have to listen to a minority since majority rules.
However, the NY Times business is that of 'liberal politics'. Unfortunately it has spread to every article....even the Sports section.
The 30 years of Democrat disregard for immigration has bought a population in New York and California of 20,000,000 votes they thought they had locked up. This election shows about 3,000,000 have been bought by those states with 'no immigration laws.'
We hear we are all 'immigrants.' Does the NY Times profess that ALL immigrants came to this country illegally?
This is a diverse country and not just one brand of pig should quaff at the trough with impunity.
I am not a democratic or a republican and I relish being in the middle where common sense resides. Unfortunately the NY Times and Brighthouse are born of the same cloth.
However, the NY Times business is that of 'liberal politics'. Unfortunately it has spread to every article....even the Sports section.
The 30 years of Democrat disregard for immigration has bought a population in New York and California of 20,000,000 votes they thought they had locked up. This election shows about 3,000,000 have been bought by those states with 'no immigration laws.'
We hear we are all 'immigrants.' Does the NY Times profess that ALL immigrants came to this country illegally?
This is a diverse country and not just one brand of pig should quaff at the trough with impunity.
I am not a democratic or a republican and I relish being in the middle where common sense resides. Unfortunately the NY Times and Brighthouse are born of the same cloth.
15
Before the Civil War, a black resident (the vast majority of them slaves) legally counted as only "three-fifths" of a person when it came to counting the populations of counties and states for the purposes of apportioning political representation.
We (well most of us) look back on that torturous legal rationalization as a shameful artifact of our nation's "original sin" of slavery. But today the vote of a Californian for his or her Congressional Representative is politically worth only one-fourth of that granted to a citizen of Wyoming.
Jefferson believed that the romanticized "yeoman farmer" was the ideal citizen - totally self-sufficient and beholden to no one; the repository of "common sense" for the nation. And maybe 240 years ago, he might have been right.
But today's super-empowered rural citizen is the most subsidized portion of the electorate. "Blue States" (largely urban) subsidize more rural "Red States" to the tune of hundreds of billions of federal dollars every year.
So "Blue Staters" are the modern equivalent of the abhorrent "three-fifths" of a person - who subsidize (both financially and politically) the much less numerous citizens of Red States. And how do these Red State voters pay us back? With "President Trump" (an oxymoron in any rational universe).
Time for Blue State Americans to rise up and reject our "second-class citizenship". We must demand the full restoration of "one person = one vote" - with all votes having equal political weight.
We (well most of us) look back on that torturous legal rationalization as a shameful artifact of our nation's "original sin" of slavery. But today the vote of a Californian for his or her Congressional Representative is politically worth only one-fourth of that granted to a citizen of Wyoming.
Jefferson believed that the romanticized "yeoman farmer" was the ideal citizen - totally self-sufficient and beholden to no one; the repository of "common sense" for the nation. And maybe 240 years ago, he might have been right.
But today's super-empowered rural citizen is the most subsidized portion of the electorate. "Blue States" (largely urban) subsidize more rural "Red States" to the tune of hundreds of billions of federal dollars every year.
So "Blue Staters" are the modern equivalent of the abhorrent "three-fifths" of a person - who subsidize (both financially and politically) the much less numerous citizens of Red States. And how do these Red State voters pay us back? With "President Trump" (an oxymoron in any rational universe).
Time for Blue State Americans to rise up and reject our "second-class citizenship". We must demand the full restoration of "one person = one vote" - with all votes having equal political weight.
79
A correction to my comment above:
I did some sloppy math and conflation between House and Senate. After some fact-checking, the average California House District has 750,000 residents; the single Wyoming House Representative speaks for all 600,000 residents of Wyoming. So, the "one-fourth" in my comment above is greatly exaggerated. Mea Culpa.
But the disparity in the Senate is approximately 66-to-1 (i.e. Wyoming's two Senators represent 600,000 residents, while California's two Senators speak for 40 million constituents. Top this off with the rampant GOP gerrymandering of House Districts (less than 10% of 435 House seats are even remotely "competitive" anymore) and the anachronistic Electoral College and the overall case made in this article is still irrefutable. The minority of voters in Red States (the "taker" states of federal tax dollars) have vastly more political power than do the voters of the Blue States (the "maker" states who massively subsidize the infrastructure and populations of the Red States).
To (badly) paraphrase our Revolutionary forefathers: "No Votation without (Equal) Representation!"
I did some sloppy math and conflation between House and Senate. After some fact-checking, the average California House District has 750,000 residents; the single Wyoming House Representative speaks for all 600,000 residents of Wyoming. So, the "one-fourth" in my comment above is greatly exaggerated. Mea Culpa.
But the disparity in the Senate is approximately 66-to-1 (i.e. Wyoming's two Senators represent 600,000 residents, while California's two Senators speak for 40 million constituents. Top this off with the rampant GOP gerrymandering of House Districts (less than 10% of 435 House seats are even remotely "competitive" anymore) and the anachronistic Electoral College and the overall case made in this article is still irrefutable. The minority of voters in Red States (the "taker" states of federal tax dollars) have vastly more political power than do the voters of the Blue States (the "maker" states who massively subsidize the infrastructure and populations of the Red States).
To (badly) paraphrase our Revolutionary forefathers: "No Votation without (Equal) Representation!"
22
One person one vote is for state-level districting. We live in a federation of states. Don't mix federal and state stuff. Senate representation is equal on a per-state basis.
8
Best idea sounds like California should split into six different states. New York same. Or, California secedes and forms its own country. Or, California stays as one state and uses all the power it has in this country. For example, as the 8th largest global economy, the state could make it clear that products (cars as just one of many examples) from anywhere in the world, including red states, have to be climate friendly or they can't be sold in the state. Set stringent energy efficiency standards. There are plenty of ways to get this done. California, start exerting your power!
48
One can come up with all kinds of proposals to favor their side. For example, in New York state presidential elections, New York City and Nassau county always go heavily Democratic, while upstate goes Republican. Perhaps New York can be divided into Westchester and Rockland, and everything south, being one state. Upstate New York could become a 51st state so that upstate voters voice can be counted, and not drowned out by New York City.
8
How is "one person, one vote" favoring a side?
31
Maybe the world series should be decided on the basis of who scores the most runs, rather than who wins the most games.
Why is it that people want to uphold the Constitution, except when it is inconvenient? Why do all states regardless of size, have two senators? NO one man one vote there. The Electoral college is based on the sum of the number of senators and House members. Amend the Constitution instead of trying to do an end run. I suppose you could also say that the amendment process to the Constitution is also unfair, because it requires 75% of states, regardless of size, not a number of states representing 75% of registered voters or residents.
An essential part of the Constitution is protection of rights of minorities. But I guess that does not extend to minority states to some people. Looks like some here favor California and New York voting everyone else off the map.
One man, one vote is definitely not a universal concept of the Constitution. I suppose you could always call for a Constitutional Convention.
Why is it that people want to uphold the Constitution, except when it is inconvenient? Why do all states regardless of size, have two senators? NO one man one vote there. The Electoral college is based on the sum of the number of senators and House members. Amend the Constitution instead of trying to do an end run. I suppose you could also say that the amendment process to the Constitution is also unfair, because it requires 75% of states, regardless of size, not a number of states representing 75% of registered voters or residents.
An essential part of the Constitution is protection of rights of minorities. But I guess that does not extend to minority states to some people. Looks like some here favor California and New York voting everyone else off the map.
One man, one vote is definitely not a universal concept of the Constitution. I suppose you could always call for a Constitutional Convention.
16
I'm fascinated by this notion of protecting the interests of minorities. By "minorities," you apparently mean rural voters, and you apparently think their votes should count for more than those of urban voters.
Tell me: Do you also favor disproportionate voter clout for other minorities? For example, should blacks have their votes count for more than whites? Should atheists' votes count more than those of Christians? Should gay people's votes count more than those of heterosexuals?
Or do you only favor protecting the minority interests of one particular minority -- that of rural voters (who happen to be overwhelmingly white, Christian, and heterosexual, which means they are not minorities at all)?
I eagerly await your well-reasoned reply.
Tell me: Do you also favor disproportionate voter clout for other minorities? For example, should blacks have their votes count for more than whites? Should atheists' votes count more than those of Christians? Should gay people's votes count more than those of heterosexuals?
Or do you only favor protecting the minority interests of one particular minority -- that of rural voters (who happen to be overwhelmingly white, Christian, and heterosexual, which means they are not minorities at all)?
I eagerly await your well-reasoned reply.
7
The imbalance in the electoral college and in the Senate has as much to do with small state large-state as rural-urban. The least and most populous states both get 2 senators. And, likewise, they each get two electoral votes that correspond to their two Senators. That means Wyoming has far greater proportional representation than California. If you keep the electoral college, the people of Wyoming have more influence than their numbers. If you eliminate the electoral college, the people of Wyoming have no real influence at all. The electoral college abandons the notion of one person, one vote. Straight majority abandons the notion that low-population states have a meaningful influence elections. Many democratic countries, including Britain and Germany, use a parliamentary system where you need a majority of seats, not a majority of votes. The question in the US comes down to whether we count individuals or whether we take into account where they live. Should the people of the 22 square miles of Manhattan have the same influence as the people of the 800,000 square miles of Alaska and Montana combined? Reasonable people can differ.
12
I would have thought people have more influence politically that some thousands of square miles of territory that is empty except for moose and bears...
8
Honest to goodness, the rural parts of the country are simply not deservimg of this imbalanced power. They require support from the population centers and then bemoan them at the same time. Less people should simply mean less power.
63
If we are unwilling to dissolve the electoral college then we need to ensure that every state is represented by population in Congress. We haven't made such a change since 1920. It's unfair and undemocratic that smaller States have a greater voice about how federal money is spent than larger states who pay more and receive less. We do a census every 10 years and our number of congressmen should be adjusted accordingly.
Also, an independent federal body under the umbrella of the DOJ should be the ones that decide how congressional districts are drawn to ensure no party is able to gerrymander and rig the system.
Also, an independent federal body under the umbrella of the DOJ should be the ones that decide how congressional districts are drawn to ensure no party is able to gerrymander and rig the system.
38
I live in Southern Illinois which is as conservative as you can get. But it makes no difference who we vote for in a presidential election. Chicago and its suburbs are very liberal and they have the votes that make that decision. It just shows that it is not always advantageous to live in a rural area. Those of us who live here would love to split Illinois into two states, north and south.
11
yet in the past 40 years illinois has had 4 republican governors and 2 democrtic governors - and you elect your governor based on a popular vote, not through an electoral college. by your argument, the republicans wouldn't stand a chance because of the voting influence of "liberal" chicago. yet that hasn't happened. the same applies to presidential elections. ronald reagan, george h.w. bush and george w. bush (second term) won the popular vote and the presidency. "liberal" urban areas do not have a lock on voting.
27
The Rural Vote’s Disproportionate Slice of Power?
Says who? Oh right, the elite living on the two coasts who know everything.
Says who? Oh right, the elite living on the two coasts who know everything.
19
Says math
49
Another injustice is that most of the rural vote doesn't come from states that produce revenue. How nice it must be to mooch off others AND call the shots.
72
Good grief! I am so tired of hearing the statement 'Clinton won the popular vote.' Well, she lost the game in the Electoral College, which is where we elect our president. Dems can say they won the four quarters of a football game - but lost the contest in overtime. Game over - move on.
25
As long as you don't care whether the United States is a democracy, the Electoral College is fine. If you do care, the Electoral College cannot be justified.
33
Yes, she lost fair and square according to the rules that were governing this game. No argument there.
But when the popular vote winner loses the election for the second time in five election cycles, that suggests that something is wrong with the rules.
But when the popular vote winner loses the election for the second time in five election cycles, that suggests that something is wrong with the rules.
55
Time to drive a stake through the heart of the electoral college.
41
The rural people are stupid too but not as much as the lemmings living in urban areas.
5
The Framers intended that the Electoral College would keep unfit unqualified persons out of the White House. If the EC does not perform that duty on December 19 of this year then it is worse than useless.
52
The answer 10 states or portion thereof ( far Northern California would not want to part of California ) to new create a new nation absence the south and mid west. While the other 40 ( including parts of the 10 ) create a new nation and charge NY and California travelers to fly over there air space and export oil etc to the likes of NYC.
3
Populist outrage really belongs in the big cities, for precisely the reasons stated in this article, and there is plenty of it.
The response to this election should be for New Yorkers, Californians and other blue staters to demand big federal tax cuts - already on the horizon in a Trump administration. And then to use the money we save to take care of our own. These red staters who voted for Trump showed us who they are, and really, who needs them?
The response to this election should be for New Yorkers, Californians and other blue staters to demand big federal tax cuts - already on the horizon in a Trump administration. And then to use the money we save to take care of our own. These red staters who voted for Trump showed us who they are, and really, who needs them?
33
You need us and the food we produce for your dinner table!
7
Actually, not really. Some much despised trade agreements ensure that urban folk will still be able to feed themselves. It has never worked out particularly well to bite the hand that feeds.
6
If majority popular vote replaced the electoral college, campaign dollars and presidential candidates' time would be concentrated in the five or six most populous states located on the coasts and the Sunbelt. The rest of the country would then truly become fly-over states. Our "united states" would rather quickly cease to exist.
16
Not true at all. If total popular vote decided, the Democratic candidate might consider a stop in a reliably red state. Not to "win" the state, but to perhaps motivate some local support so that the state might go Republican 55 to 45% instead of 60/40. Since all the votes count in the national tally, it could make a difference in a close election. Conversely, some blue states might gain attention from the Republican candidate. The point is, everybody's vote would be worth something.
25
And how is the current system any better? As it is, during a general election, the candidates visit only a small number of the fifty states. Thus, the concerns of the majority of Americans aren't addressed. I doubt the important issues to the people in California or Oregon or Washington are the same as those in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania. Perhaps if we decided our president based on the popular vote, the candidates would feel compelled to visit more states, and try to appeal to a greater proportion of the people than they currently do, by talking about a wide variety of issues. Maybe because you are from Ohio, you can always feel like your vote matters. But I before moving to Wisconsin this past July, I lived in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Louisiana. I always knew the outcome of the election well before election day. I know what the outcome will be in 2020 in those states right now. It didn't stop me from voting, but it does stop others. This year was the first time in my life where I felt my vote actually mattered. That is the sad reality for most Americans, at least in presidential elections.
20
You mean candidates would campaign where the most people are, so the largest audience could hear what they have to say and assess their ideas accordingly?
Wow, what a horrible concept.
Wow, what a horrible concept.
18
This "problem" goes away as soon as we have politicians who realize they have to govern everyone and not force people to accept changes they apparently don't want. It has been all or nothing one way or the other the last 8 years. The electoral college as it is now, as it always has been, will force balance and compromise. Or a lot of more moaning by the losers about how unfair rules are. Mrs. Clinton had every opportunity to get all those rural votes and the electoral votes that go with them.
24
Just ask yourselves this.
Would there be this much indignation if HIllary had won?
Would there be this much indignation if HIllary had won?
19
You mean if the candidate who received the most votes had one? I doubt there would be any indignation.
37
We were promised blood in the streets if Hillary won. You forgot?
42
More. People would be being shot.
11
Too bad for the bi-coastal politics liberals that their operating theory that they could cram their identity politics down flyover country's throat did not exactly pan out. But actually it's an excellent thing for the country that the Democratic Party will now have to turn more in the direction of Bernie Sanders' FDR politics, which cared as much for rural American white poverty as urban black, instead of the Clinton Machine-Goldman Sachs politics which cloaked neoliberalism for the rich with a cloak of sanctity from pretending to care about blacks, women, and gays more than money, for political gain.
23
Clinton did well in states with strong modern economies, including outperforming Obama in Texas. She lost in states that have declined under Obama. Of course, they will decline under Trump too.
25
The popular vote (urban of rural) is an interesting philosophical discussion, but meaningless: it's like trying to employ the rules of basketball in a football game. The President is elected by the electoral college. Campaigns are run to win the electoral college. Trump would have run a different campaign if the popular vote mattered. And he would have still won, because Hillary was that bad of a candidate...
17
Given that Clinton won the popular vote by 1.7 million and counting, perhaps she wasn't such a bad candidate after all. Her weakness was in rust belt states that have continued their decline for the last eight years, while her strength was in states that have done well.
34
Oh yeah. I can see that Trump rally in Harlem now. No, there's only one Trump.
11
Trump did not win the popular vote. The electoral system is not democracy. This is tyranny of the minority.
19
Surely, I though, the headline is a joke. Sadly, it is not. The idea that rural voters have any power at all in proportion to urban voters is beyond the pale.
9
The rural effect on the Senate has become even greater with today's almost routine invoking of the filibuster, especially since the righties know how to stick with a filibuster while the Dems usually back off of total obstruction.
9
Democrats changed the filibuster rules if you years ago for presidential appointments. It looks like it could come back to bite them
5
They did it because they knew the republicans would change it the first chance they got. At least this way the dems got some federal judges appointed.
5
The glaring, unspoken subtext of this piece: For generations, many of the best and brightest in our rural communities have gravitated to our cities. So not only do our more conservative states have disproportionate influence, our less educated, less creative, less ambitious and less economically vibrant states have disproportionate influence. This situation is most painfully undemocratic, un-meritocratic and is a potential recipe for the end of these United States.
Mind you, I'm not calling for anything more than for each vote cast in the US to carry equal weight. Unfortunately, one party has been terrified of this notion and for at least 30 years has stopped at nothing to undermine it.
Mind you, I'm not calling for anything more than for each vote cast in the US to carry equal weight. Unfortunately, one party has been terrified of this notion and for at least 30 years has stopped at nothing to undermine it.
50
"So not only do our more conservative states have disproportionate influence, our less educated, less creative, less ambitious and less economically vibrant states have disproportionate influence"
Our inner cities are full of less educated less creative less ambitious and less economically vibrant people. The Democrats have pandered to them for generations. I daresay there's more ignorance in the cities than in rural areas
Our inner cities are full of less educated less creative less ambitious and less economically vibrant people. The Democrats have pandered to them for generations. I daresay there's more ignorance in the cities than in rural areas
8
"Mind you, I'm not calling for anything more than for each vote cast in the US to carry equal weight."
This isn't a new idea at all. It's been tried out before, as far back as Ancient Greece. Our founders found it to be flawed and thus we live in a republic, not a democracy. it's not perfect but it beats the heck out of mob rule, aka true democracy.
This isn't a new idea at all. It's been tried out before, as far back as Ancient Greece. Our founders found it to be flawed and thus we live in a republic, not a democracy. it's not perfect but it beats the heck out of mob rule, aka true democracy.
8
Yeah, the inner-city of Midtown Manhattan is so desperately wanting for creative, ambitious, and economically vibrant people compared to the bustling metropolis of the suburban city of Orlando.
2
I say residents of blue states, who send money to ungrateful and over-represented red states year after year, should quit paying their federal taxes, and send that portion to their own state governments instead. It's time for a revolution, with money being the weapon of choice.
57
Well, here we go.
5
It is somewhat misleading to describe the US as either urban or rural. There are a couple of intermediate categories, suburban and exurban. Using two modes of population density is a silly way to categorize. But when the political calculus has an agenda, misleading data can be very useful.
4
I suspect that refining the categories would not significantly alter the calculus. After all, a Californian's vote carries 28% of the weight of a Wyoming resident's vote in presidential elections -- independently of whether the Californian lives in LA or Lassen County.
7
Not a good idea to marginalize the people who feed you.
15
That's the point. You don't feed us. You don't do anything for us. We don't need you, we don't want you and we would be just fine without you.
7
How is "one person, one vote" and equal representation "marginalizing"? Loss of minority rule is "marginalizing"?
11
Not a good idea to marginalize those you feed who outnumber you significantly.
5
Perhaps instead of moving blocks of Democratic voters to the sticks, respectful exchange of ideas could change Republican voters to Democratic voters.
6
We need to get rid of the Electoral College, or at least overhaul it so that we reach some semblance of fairness. Clearly that will not happen until we get a Democratic majority in Congress. Right now that's looking like about the same time as when pigs fly.
16
The electoral college was decided this election by urban states anyway. it's really not the main problem. The outsize advantage rural Republicans enjoy in the House and state legislatures is far more problematic.
6
Hey....let's just get rid of the constitution. Too bad you don't understand the foibles of a democracy in countries without a homogenous population.
Under a 'democracy' the minority has NO rights.
Under a 'democracy' the minority has NO rights.
10
"Under a 'democracy' the minority has NO rights."
So you're advocating for the interests of the minority -- in this case, rural voters.
What about other minorities? For example, do you also think blacks' votes should count more than those of whites? Do you also think atheists' votes should count more than those of Christians? Do you also think gays' votes should count more than those of heterosexuals?
Or do you only favor protecting the disproportionate voter clout for one minority group -- rural voters (who, incidentally, happen to be overwhelmingly white, Christian, and straight, which means they're not minorities at all)?
So you're advocating for the interests of the minority -- in this case, rural voters.
What about other minorities? For example, do you also think blacks' votes should count more than those of whites? Do you also think atheists' votes should count more than those of Christians? Do you also think gays' votes should count more than those of heterosexuals?
Or do you only favor protecting the disproportionate voter clout for one minority group -- rural voters (who, incidentally, happen to be overwhelmingly white, Christian, and straight, which means they're not minorities at all)?
3
Would the NYT publish this story if it was reversed and their candidate had won the electoral college and lost the popular vote?
22
No.
1
If the democrat won only the popular vote but not the electoral college, that would be a historic reversal of the trend wouldn't it. But how possible would that be really, if democrats represent more the interests of city people, and republicans the country people ? How would that ever reverse ?
1
Food for thought... given the configuration of the electoral college and rural=republican, a republican candidate winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college is probably impossible.
2
The rural states also suck up all the federal money. Farm subsidies come to mind.
They are moochers.
They are moochers.
30
All fifty (50) States should be re-assessed vis a vis land and population and an entirely new map of The United States of America should be drawn.
"America" or whatever one would wish to call this "land mass" now, bears on relation in any form, fashion, way or manner to maps, territories, districts, precincts, lots, neighbourhoods, et. al. that were drawn centuries, decades and years ago.
The reason why Congress and Government have evolved to become dead and gridlocked is because the "romantic" vision of America is still embedded in scenes, vignettes, and situations such as Colonial Williamsburg. Washington, D. C. does not function due to the fact that it is merely a Disneyesque amusement park that is a total fantasyland.
American and Washington, D. C, are barely in the 20th Century much less the 21st.
America, its Government, its institutions, its people must either plunge into the 21st Century or be dragged into kicking and screaming and streaming. America's ratings and rankings among developed, industrialized nations are pathetic. This is not surprising given that we no longer have an industrial sector in America.
"America" or whatever one would wish to call this "land mass" now, bears on relation in any form, fashion, way or manner to maps, territories, districts, precincts, lots, neighbourhoods, et. al. that were drawn centuries, decades and years ago.
The reason why Congress and Government have evolved to become dead and gridlocked is because the "romantic" vision of America is still embedded in scenes, vignettes, and situations such as Colonial Williamsburg. Washington, D. C. does not function due to the fact that it is merely a Disneyesque amusement park that is a total fantasyland.
American and Washington, D. C, are barely in the 20th Century much less the 21st.
America, its Government, its institutions, its people must either plunge into the 21st Century or be dragged into kicking and screaming and streaming. America's ratings and rankings among developed, industrialized nations are pathetic. This is not surprising given that we no longer have an industrial sector in America.
13
So, how do we fix this? As we just learnt over the last 8 (6) years, when the country is as partisan as it is today, there's little point in electing a President if his party doesn't have the majority in at least the senate, if not the House as well (Like Trump!) and the way things are set up today, it's very doubtful we will get that chance any time soon. What's the point in electing someone who can't get any of the things we voted him in for, done! The system is set up for another time, as the article says, but it gives little opinion on how we can change things. Our forefathers were undoubtably intelligent and forward thinking men, but if they were alive today, they would be the first to understand that the system needed a major overhaul and update. How could they possibly foresee and thus protect for the scenario's of today. They couldn't, so how do we fix this inequality and stop being dictated to by a minority (50 mil out of a population of 319 mil)!
13
One irony of note is that the subsidies and welfare doled out by blue states to red states appear to have really produced a dependent and indolent population in the latter, just as Republicans have warned for years.
If the structure of government is this unalterable, and it seems like that's the case, blue states need to figure out a way to stop expending their largess on ungrateful, bigoted, languid rural voters. Let them fend for themselves, rugged individualists that they are.
Maybe it's actually time to work with Republicans to reduce federal taxation down to nearly nothing, then allow blue states to reinvest their funds in their own communities.
If the structure of government is this unalterable, and it seems like that's the case, blue states need to figure out a way to stop expending their largess on ungrateful, bigoted, languid rural voters. Let them fend for themselves, rugged individualists that they are.
Maybe it's actually time to work with Republicans to reduce federal taxation down to nearly nothing, then allow blue states to reinvest their funds in their own communities.
78
End farm subsidies.
19
Our new president has told us it's smart not to pay federal taxes...
10
It is a false narrative that the populous states contribute more to federal coffers than they receive in federal largesse.
7
References, please?
10
Show me the numbers, with references, please. Just stating something doesn't make it so. By the way: The moon is made of cheese.
18
Electoral college discussions come up every four years. The system is convoluted enough that we need the cognitive dissidence to renew the debate about why we have it and whether it is a good system. This piece contributes to this debate facts and analysis. It does not make much of an effort to explore reasons we may want to keep the electoral college around, which is fine. There are plenty of other articles that do. One such article that is worth a read was published in Slate in 2012 "defending the electoral college". http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/1...
There may very well be a better system than the EC, but a simple popular vote is not without pitfalls.
There may very well be a better system than the EC, but a simple popular vote is not without pitfalls.
4
Yeoman farmers? That might have been the ideal of a few, but it is disingenuous to discuss the founding compromise of the electoral college and not bring up slavery.
20
Nothing will change.
It takes the approval of 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.
Well more than half the states benefit from the current rules.
The only option is for the most populous states to secede.
Good luck with that.
It takes the approval of 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment.
Well more than half the states benefit from the current rules.
The only option is for the most populous states to secede.
Good luck with that.
5
It's either that or civil war.
9
Or for California to split into ten states.
1
One day, Texas will go narrowly blue and Republicans will suddenly be very motivated to modify the electoral college.
11
One just has to marvel at the prescient forethought of the men who wrote the Constitution. Our founding fathers anticipated a nation where power could be concentrated in a few heavily populated locales and determined that was not desirable. Our government needed to be responsive to the entire country, not just to large states like New York and California. Thus, did they create and we were blessed with the electoral college.
When I think that the result we just saw was anticipated by men who wrote our founding document in 1787, I'm gobsmacked. To think, that we literally pulled off the greatest election upset in history because those men paved the way, intentionally, is almost more than I can take in.
Thank you, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, et al. The world has never seen, nor will it likely ever see a collection of men as magnificent as you. Your vision was priceless.
When I think that the result we just saw was anticipated by men who wrote our founding document in 1787, I'm gobsmacked. To think, that we literally pulled off the greatest election upset in history because those men paved the way, intentionally, is almost more than I can take in.
Thank you, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, et al. The world has never seen, nor will it likely ever see a collection of men as magnificent as you. Your vision was priceless.
14
The founding fathers also determined that giving the vote to slaves and women was not desirable. Their vision was pretty good, but not 'priceless'.
9
Considering our Constitution has served us through 229 years of unimaginable change and includes a mechanism for self correction via amendments, I say priceless.
4
The system was actually to benefit Rhode Island, Delaware, New Hampshire, etc. It had nothing to do with urban/rural then and it really doesn't now. One day, Texas will go blue and Democrats will suddenly benefit from the electoral college. Watch how fast it gets modified then.
5
This is an excellent, well-written article. It needed to be written and helps explain how Mr. Trump became the President-Elect even though Mrs. Clinton received 2 million more votes than he did.
One of the mysteries of our system is how the interests of voters in "rural" areas differ from the interests of voters in "urban" areas. When you get down to the real factors that make America a better place to live, it causes me wonder if the issues that have been established to emphasize the difference between urban and rural voters are somewhat fabricated in order for the political class to gain power.
What I have observed is small population states and distrticts seem to re-elect their members more often than urban states and districts and as a consequence the seniority of the elected members gives them more power by haveing a disproportionate number of committee and sub-committee chairs.
Anyhow, I feel like the EC and the redistricting that occurs every 10 years has been harmful to our system and to the common welfare of our citizens. I believe we can for a much more perfect union if we abolish the Electoral College and work on a defining districts that would represent the broad interests of the citizens.
This is a good start for an interesting Thanksgiving family discussion.
One of the mysteries of our system is how the interests of voters in "rural" areas differ from the interests of voters in "urban" areas. When you get down to the real factors that make America a better place to live, it causes me wonder if the issues that have been established to emphasize the difference between urban and rural voters are somewhat fabricated in order for the political class to gain power.
What I have observed is small population states and distrticts seem to re-elect their members more often than urban states and districts and as a consequence the seniority of the elected members gives them more power by haveing a disproportionate number of committee and sub-committee chairs.
Anyhow, I feel like the EC and the redistricting that occurs every 10 years has been harmful to our system and to the common welfare of our citizens. I believe we can for a much more perfect union if we abolish the Electoral College and work on a defining districts that would represent the broad interests of the citizens.
This is a good start for an interesting Thanksgiving family discussion.
3
Eighty percent of all incumbents are re-elected. There is no difference between urban and rural voters.
If redistricting did not take place every ten years, the rural districts would have even more power than they do currently. They have been losing population relative to the urban areas for two hundred years. That's why the redistricting takes place every ten years. Silly.
If redistricting did not take place every ten years, the rural districts would have even more power than they do currently. They have been losing population relative to the urban areas for two hundred years. That's why the redistricting takes place every ten years. Silly.
2
Thank you for a fascinating analysis. It points out why many voters, especially urban voters, believe that our federal government is unable to respond their needs. There are clearly structural problems that must be fixed through constitutional amendments. I for one am OK leaving the Senate as-is, but the electoral college and gerrymandering by states have to go. At the same time, we can provide additional voices for the minority party(ies) in Congress by requiring that any resolution acquiring at least 25% of the chamber's members must be voted on. We should have proportionate representation, but we cannot allow the majority to drown the voice of the minority.
3
You might want to reconsider what protect a minority. If a minority of 25% want to vote on something, it is a waste of time, because the 75% majority is going to vote no.
When the Republicans had the majority of the Senate early in the Bush administration, they took the long view, thinking that one day they would be in the minority and would want the protection of the rule that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to close the debate and take an up or down vote, and avoided the nuclear option. They agreed with the Democrats for the Dems to not filibuster except in extreme circumstances and the Republicans would not change the rules. After the Democrats took the majority in the Senate, Reid would not allow a vote on the two vacancies in the DC Court of Appeals that arose under W. And he exercised the nuclear option in 2013 when he wanted to pack the DC court. The refusal to confirm the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama is direct payback for the two Republican seats in the DC Court stolen by Reid.
When the Republicans had the majority of the Senate early in the Bush administration, they took the long view, thinking that one day they would be in the minority and would want the protection of the rule that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to close the debate and take an up or down vote, and avoided the nuclear option. They agreed with the Democrats for the Dems to not filibuster except in extreme circumstances and the Republicans would not change the rules. After the Democrats took the majority in the Senate, Reid would not allow a vote on the two vacancies in the DC Court of Appeals that arose under W. And he exercised the nuclear option in 2013 when he wanted to pack the DC court. The refusal to confirm the SCOTUS vacancy under Obama is direct payback for the two Republican seats in the DC Court stolen by Reid.
5
I am an urban voter and a Democrat. Yet, this is the flaw I see with this analysis: "And the growing unity of rural Americans as a voting bloc has converted the rural bias in national politics into a potent Republican advantage." If there is no growing unity among urban voters, isn't democracy going to dictate that fairness is in favor of Republican victories? The problem Democrats have to face is not that rurals "unfairly" vote more Republican than urbans vote Democrat. The problem is how to make rurals understand that Republican vote may not be in their best interest.
13
The problem is that these "rurals" don't need anyone to "make" them understand things.
Statements like yours are utter hubris and the reason democrats got trounced. It is also the reason we still need the electoral college - because people like you feel an obligation to "make" people in rural communities understand things.
Statements like yours are utter hubris and the reason democrats got trounced. It is also the reason we still need the electoral college - because people like you feel an obligation to "make" people in rural communities understand things.
You seem to be forgetting about change in the size of each population. Imagine urban areas have 70 million Democrats and 30 million Republicans, and rural areas have 30 million Democrats and 70 million Republicans - the total population is equally split.
Now let's say that over time the urban areas swell to 140 million Democrats and 60 million Republicans, while rural areas shrink to no Democrats and 50 million Republicans. Democrats now outnumber Republicans by 30 million, even though there has been growing unity in rural areas only.
Now let's say that over time the urban areas swell to 140 million Democrats and 60 million Republicans, while rural areas shrink to no Democrats and 50 million Republicans. Democrats now outnumber Republicans by 30 million, even though there has been growing unity in rural areas only.
1
What happened this year was that the urbans realized that a Democrat vote was not in their interest. All of those working class people who voted for Trump instead of Hillary are not living in the hills of Appalachia.
The article strives to make urbanites feel aggrieved. Even if, as represented, rural voters have a bigger slice of power in selecting the President than they would otherwise, it is not a significant determinant of the outcome. And their numbers are so small that in a 20/80 split, if their per capita power is double, you are still talking about a 40/60 split. And the power differential is much smaller.
Think about it. Hillary has 47.95% of the popular vote to Trump's 47.09%. All of the 0.86% can be attributed to California's over vote, a state where Trump and the Republicans did not devote any resources. Had the rules been different, both candidates would have used different strategies than they did.
The rural 20% probably preferred Trump to Hillary. But a sizeable proportion of the 80% of the urban population also preferred Trump to Hillary. (Suburbanites favored Trump over Hillary)
The article strives to make urbanites feel aggrieved. Even if, as represented, rural voters have a bigger slice of power in selecting the President than they would otherwise, it is not a significant determinant of the outcome. And their numbers are so small that in a 20/80 split, if their per capita power is double, you are still talking about a 40/60 split. And the power differential is much smaller.
Think about it. Hillary has 47.95% of the popular vote to Trump's 47.09%. All of the 0.86% can be attributed to California's over vote, a state where Trump and the Republicans did not devote any resources. Had the rules been different, both candidates would have used different strategies than they did.
The rural 20% probably preferred Trump to Hillary. But a sizeable proportion of the 80% of the urban population also preferred Trump to Hillary. (Suburbanites favored Trump over Hillary)
5
The system is rigged.
12
My recollection was that part of the intention of the Electoral College was to protect the agrarian areas from the bias of the cities, where the forefathers foresaw the majority of people living. The Electoral College was therefore intended to protect Virginia from the Tyranny of urban states of NY and NJ. Anyway, it proved to work this month. Sadly.
4
Your recollection is off. In the original thirteen states, the northern "industrialized" states had much smaller populations than the agrarian South with its large acreage, labor intensive plantations. Had the House and Electoral College been allocated solely on population, the South would have overwhelmed the Union. Thus came about the 3/5 compromise which diminished the counted population of the South. The South's larger population controlled the House in the mid 1800's, while the less populous North controlled the Senate.
The House protected the interests of the majority, while the Senate protected the interests of the minority. The Electoral College was a hybrid.
The electoral college protected Maine and Rhode Island from Georgia and South Carolina, which had larger populations.
The House protected the interests of the majority, while the Senate protected the interests of the minority. The Electoral College was a hybrid.
The electoral college protected Maine and Rhode Island from Georgia and South Carolina, which had larger populations.
4
"The Rural Vote’s Disproportionate Slice of Power"
Otherwise known as the 12th amendment. Don't like it, change it. But understand why it was enacted in the first place. Haven't seen much in the comments section that indicates that knowledge is common in the red states.
Otherwise known as the 12th amendment. Don't like it, change it. But understand why it was enacted in the first place. Haven't seen much in the comments section that indicates that knowledge is common in the red states.
2
end should read 'blue states'
2
We know why it was created: to enhance the power of slave owners.
9
240 years ago some grave citizens grew tired of taxation without representation and formed a new nation. With any hope, we will see the same in California. This system of Republican vote rigging cannot stand.
23
And how sending republicans to Congress elections after elections has worked for " rural " America ?
13
The power structure of rural America does just fine economically with the current system. The average citizen not so much, but the average citizen votes on social issues such as abortion and gay rights, not economic issues.
8
Reduced environmental regulation is quite helpful to rural areas. Mining, timber, ranching, no pesky laws about agricultural water pollution. How many people in coal country just want to get their $25/hr blowing the tops off mountains?
3
My grandfather would have said - concerning the lack of equal representation
in the Electoral College and the Congress:
"Well if they are dumb enough to move to a city, why shouldn't their voting
power be lessened."
Once we reached 50 States and 100 Senators we seemed to have reached
a set of numbers that we like because they are "familiar" numbers.
But there is no reason why we cannot add new states.
Why not try this:
Step One:
A) Split California into four States.
B) Split Florida into three States.
C) Split Texas into four States.
D) Split New York into three States.
E) Create Western Oregon and Western Washington as new States.
combine Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington into one State.
F) Split Pennsylvania into two States.
This would create 26 new Senators - Electoral Votes.
11 likely Republican and 15 Democratic.
[So this election would have produced a Democrat controlled Senate.]
Increase the number of members of the House of Representatives to 500.
Most of the new Congressional Districts would be in the Urban areas and
more likely to have Representatives who are Democrats.
Award Electoral Votes based on the following formula:
The Winner of each Congressional District wins one vote.
The Winner of each State wins two votes.
Now it is worth reaching out to more Congressional Districts in States that
have been giving all their Electoral Votes to one Party in election after election.
Perhaps the New York Times could create such an Electoral Map.
in the Electoral College and the Congress:
"Well if they are dumb enough to move to a city, why shouldn't their voting
power be lessened."
Once we reached 50 States and 100 Senators we seemed to have reached
a set of numbers that we like because they are "familiar" numbers.
But there is no reason why we cannot add new states.
Why not try this:
Step One:
A) Split California into four States.
B) Split Florida into three States.
C) Split Texas into four States.
D) Split New York into three States.
E) Create Western Oregon and Western Washington as new States.
combine Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington into one State.
F) Split Pennsylvania into two States.
This would create 26 new Senators - Electoral Votes.
11 likely Republican and 15 Democratic.
[So this election would have produced a Democrat controlled Senate.]
Increase the number of members of the House of Representatives to 500.
Most of the new Congressional Districts would be in the Urban areas and
more likely to have Representatives who are Democrats.
Award Electoral Votes based on the following formula:
The Winner of each Congressional District wins one vote.
The Winner of each State wins two votes.
Now it is worth reaching out to more Congressional Districts in States that
have been giving all their Electoral Votes to one Party in election after election.
Perhaps the New York Times could create such an Electoral Map.
9
The areas split off would overwhelmingly be Republican, so you wouldn't get the change you are expecting in the Senate.
The distribution of Representatives would not be very different with 500 than with 438.
Your "new rules" regarding the Electoral College vastly increase the probability that there will be no majority and the election will therefore be decided by the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote. What do you think the probability is that a Democrat would ever be elected by the House. (Keep in mind that even the Pelosi Congress of 2008 would have selected a Republican.)
The distribution of Representatives would not be very different with 500 than with 438.
Your "new rules" regarding the Electoral College vastly increase the probability that there will be no majority and the election will therefore be decided by the House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote. What do you think the probability is that a Democrat would ever be elected by the House. (Keep in mind that even the Pelosi Congress of 2008 would have selected a Republican.)
Or start by making the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico states.
4
How about every City over a million becomes a City-State.
3
So, the rural, mostly-white,rural states get more funding and have more political power per person than the more populous states, which voted for Clinton. Clearly the only thing for them to do is protest in anguish by electing an incompetent extremist to the presidency. Yes, you really showed the rest of us. Perhaps we should give them extra Senate seats to the underpopulated states and offer them more money if they'll let us have a president with character, values and intelligence.
15
And yet, when drivers in Tennessee pay federal excise tax on their road fuels, only 80% of the taxes collected are allocated back to Tennessee, while NYS gets 120% of the taxes they contributed.
The big state bullies get more than their share of money from the federal government.
Enough of the residents of the states that Trump carried would have voted for the Democrat candidate if the Democrat Party elite had offered them a candidate who had character, values and intelligence. But the elite offered up a woman who had an impressive resume, but no accomplishments. She had exploited her positions of power to get high speaking and consulting fees for her husband and daughter. She had used a charitable foundation to advance her political aspirations, to employ her political operatives and to pay for her daughter's living expenses and wedding. She attempted to avoid FOIA requests by keeping classified information on a home server. No offer of government largesse would induce decent people to vote for Hillary.
The big state bullies get more than their share of money from the federal government.
Enough of the residents of the states that Trump carried would have voted for the Democrat candidate if the Democrat Party elite had offered them a candidate who had character, values and intelligence. But the elite offered up a woman who had an impressive resume, but no accomplishments. She had exploited her positions of power to get high speaking and consulting fees for her husband and daughter. She had used a charitable foundation to advance her political aspirations, to employ her political operatives and to pay for her daughter's living expenses and wedding. She attempted to avoid FOIA requests by keeping classified information on a home server. No offer of government largesse would induce decent people to vote for Hillary.
3
The numbers are not what make it wrong! I am from Missouri, which is considered average, but still no presidential candidate bothers to campaign here. No one seems to care about the issues that I care about.
4
You should be in favor of ending the electoral college. That will get candidates to focus on the national vote. They may pay you a visit. As to issues, you are assuming there are issues you care about that no one from Missouri would care about. Surely there are no "Missouri only issues"
3
The smallest 13 states have barely 10,000,000 citizens yet control 26% of the Senate. The largest 6 states have almost 150,000,000 citizens and control 12% of the Senate.
Conservatives like to say that we must abide by the original intent of the Constitution but fail to consider that the founders truly believed that the population of the original 13 states would have a similar number of citizens over time.
The Constitution was a great document for their (the creators) time but not all time.
Conservatives like to say that we must abide by the original intent of the Constitution but fail to consider that the founders truly believed that the population of the original 13 states would have a similar number of citizens over time.
The Constitution was a great document for their (the creators) time but not all time.
16
What's the big deal?
Obama and Bill Clinton had no problem with split between urban and rural states.
Obama and Bill Clinton had no problem with split between urban and rural states.
2
The original 13 states had small population urban populations and large population rural states. The Senate was set up to protect the North from the South. The House was set up to favor the high population states over the small population North.
Democrats like to tinker with the rules to give themselves temporary tactical advantages.
Democrats like to tinker with the rules to give themselves temporary tactical advantages.
2
Hillary won as well if you counted.
It was conceivable that Hillary could have beat Mr. Trump by 10,000,000 votes and still 'lost.' And that is what revolutions are fought over.
It was conceivable that Hillary could have beat Mr. Trump by 10,000,000 votes and still 'lost.' And that is what revolutions are fought over.
4
Of course the electoral college is absurd, as is having two Dakotas with 4 senators.
But beware the hubris of yuppie urban culture proclaiming that the countryside is for crackers.
Cities are vulnerable, artificial space colonies of office-dwellers looking down the 'real' america from their towers built on shifting landfills of finance capital.
A virtuous vision of a sustainable, rural America can still emerge, when thoughtful, open-minded individuals return to the land.
But beware the hubris of yuppie urban culture proclaiming that the countryside is for crackers.
Cities are vulnerable, artificial space colonies of office-dwellers looking down the 'real' america from their towers built on shifting landfills of finance capital.
A virtuous vision of a sustainable, rural America can still emerge, when thoughtful, open-minded individuals return to the land.
9
Good luck with that. Urbanization is a global phenomenon, for better or worse.
7
Poppycock. People live in cities because they are effecient. People left the farm communities because there was no work for them due to mechanization. Farmers and farm communities are not morally superior, nor would they be sustainable with subsidies from urban areas. While people in rural communities can be kind and generous. They can also be small minded and prejudiced and self righteous. I've lived in both rural and urban America. There is no justification for their outsized political power. It's time we equalized the membership in the House of Representatives
14
Thank you for an insightful article.
1
The problem is not in allocating so many electoral votes per each state's electoral ballot (there's a perfectly good reason for doing that), the problem is in basing that allocation on a state's congressional delegation instead of basing it on the purely representative House delegation, that number being determined by the census. The congressional delegation number is made disproportional due to the unrepresentative number of US Senators per state. Base it on House Members only and the electoral ballot is made representative of the population. And the reason for the electoral ballot (college) is so that one state cannot stuff the ballot box wildly and thereby skewing and tilting the national popular vote. Limiting a state to its census determined electoral votes solves that problem. Think about it.
2
Were it not for the structure of the federal legislature, there would be no United States of America. The reasons it was necessary in 1783 remain just as valid today. Do New Yorkers want Minuteman nuclear missile batteries on Long Island, or in Bergen County? With straight-up one-person, one-vote federal elections, what keeps the polluting city masses from turning Wyoming into a toxic waste dump. Only the outsized Nevada congressional delegation saved that state from hosting a nuclear waste storage facility that Los Angeles had no interest in having. Then, consider the House of Representatives. Despite being equally distributed based on population, the Republicans dominate the House more thoroughly than at any time in the past 80 years ... BUT WAIT! you say ... REDISTRICTING! That claim brings us to the third point of error in this article, which is that it misses the real point. Republicans don' t cluster, they spread, while Democrats cluster ever more tightly in "blue ghettos" where their votes go wasted. Republicans seem to be able to survive in environments where they are the minority, while Democrats not so much. If as few as 200,000 Democrats had left the comfort of Manhattan and San Francisco to stake a claim in the wilderness of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and a couple other states, then Hillary Clinton would be President. Sadly, that seems too great a challenge for the swaddled and cosseted Democratic urbanites of today.
13
The "comfort of Manhattan and San Francisco"?!
You apparently don't know much about the cost of living in those cities.
Yes, I know, we're free to move. Not suggesting otherwise. Simply pointing out that comfort comes in many forms, and that many factors come into play when deciding where to live.
You apparently don't know much about the cost of living in those cities.
Yes, I know, we're free to move. Not suggesting otherwise. Simply pointing out that comfort comes in many forms, and that many factors come into play when deciding where to live.
1
Counties who generate our food should continue to receive a disproportionate share of voting power and resources.
American are alive and prospering thank to those counties.
Rural America produces. Cities consumes.
American are alive and prospering thank to those counties.
Rural America produces. Cities consumes.
5
Counties aren't people. As for people, " In 1900, about 41 percent of the total U.S. workforce farmed. This share dropped to 16 percent in 1945, 4 percent in 1970, and only 2 percent in 2000."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports/str...
But, even if most people in rural areas were farmers, or had the edge in "production" (they don't), they still should not be entitled to more representation than other citizens. As faulty as the argument that only property owners should be allowed to vote.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports/str...
But, even if most people in rural areas were farmers, or had the edge in "production" (they don't), they still should not be entitled to more representation than other citizens. As faulty as the argument that only property owners should be allowed to vote.
3
Cities pay for their consumption with money, not their votes.
4
Cities produce education, healthcare, financial services, utility infrastructures, transportation systems to move the produce to consumers, to name a few things. There are many roles that are necessary to make this country work.
8
Along with the movement of the population from rural areas to urban, it’s worth noting how immigration into urban areas has contributed to the shift in population distribution. That seems crucial for understanding the anti-immigrant sentiment of Trump supporters -- coming from people who typically see immigrants far less in their neighborhoods than their urban counterparts do.
8
The election from the start was based off the electoral college. Both candidates structured their campaigns with the full knowledge of how this system works. If the system changed to the popular vote each candidate would have completely changed how they campaigned. You all do realize that the democrates lost more than just the presidency right? I mean can you even classify it as a party anymore? It was a clean sweep. How are you going to spin that?
10
Democrat elites speak only to each other. Since everyone they know agrees with them, or remains silent to avoid being called deplorable, they believe that their views represent the majority.
When they see that the majority of states are Republican, they set about coming up with rationales to explain the discrepancy between their world view and reality.
When they see that the majority of states are Republican, they set about coming up with rationales to explain the discrepancy between their world view and reality.
10
Talk to us in 2 years.
3
You're missing the point. Yes, Trump won fair and square according to these rules. No argument there. Nobody's trying to nullify or overturn the result (or at least I'm certainly not).
But when you have a set of rules that lets the popular vote winner lose the election two times in five election cycles, that suggests that there's something wrong with the rules. There is literally no other elected office in America (or, to my knowledge, in any Western-style democracy) where the popular vote winner loses. From school board to governor, popular vote is the determinant — and for pretty obvious reasons.
I've yet to hear a cogent argument for why the presidency shouldn't be determine by popular vote. I've heard lots of arguments for why it IS set up that way, but not why it SHOULD be set up that way.
But when you have a set of rules that lets the popular vote winner lose the election two times in five election cycles, that suggests that there's something wrong with the rules. There is literally no other elected office in America (or, to my knowledge, in any Western-style democracy) where the popular vote winner loses. From school board to governor, popular vote is the determinant — and for pretty obvious reasons.
I've yet to hear a cogent argument for why the presidency shouldn't be determine by popular vote. I've heard lots of arguments for why it IS set up that way, but not why it SHOULD be set up that way.
6
This article is littered with factual errors and huge leaps of logic. Here's one that is easily verifiable:
New York City was actually supposed to be the capital of New York when the colonies declared their independence. It wasn't moved up the Hudson River (originally to Kingston, then to Albany) because of some "Jeffersonian suspicion of big cities" at all. It was located in Kingston because New York City was occupied by the British in 1777 when the state constitution was written.
Also, it made perfect sense in the early decades of the nation to have a state capital located as close to the center of the state as possible. A state capital was the site of state government buildings and Federal courts, and since residents of each state could only travel on foot or on horseback at the time, locating a state capital close to the center of the state made for the easiest travel from the furthest reaches of the state.
New York City was actually supposed to be the capital of New York when the colonies declared their independence. It wasn't moved up the Hudson River (originally to Kingston, then to Albany) because of some "Jeffersonian suspicion of big cities" at all. It was located in Kingston because New York City was occupied by the British in 1777 when the state constitution was written.
Also, it made perfect sense in the early decades of the nation to have a state capital located as close to the center of the state as possible. A state capital was the site of state government buildings and Federal courts, and since residents of each state could only travel on foot or on horseback at the time, locating a state capital close to the center of the state made for the easiest travel from the furthest reaches of the state.
14
Funny, but no one questioned the electoral college system til Trump won. Now Hillary's supporters want to change the rules of the game, but Hillary would have lost regardless because she obviously doesn't know how to win. The system worked, and the result was the right one.
8
It's never too late to question whether an established system needs improvement. Don't you know 2000?
The system worked, but the result is not the right one.
The system worked, but the result is not the right one.
4
This is not factual. People have been challenging the electoral college and the disproportionality of how votes are weighted for several decades now. This has nothing to do with a particular candidate or party.
5
Not true! It was protested in 2000 & is argued over every presidential election year. Making Electoral College votes proportional to popular vote would help.
13
I'm no expert, but I think the winner-take-all in all but two states is the real problem with the Electoral College. That's how, after all the chads were counted, Bush won by 537--yes, 537 votes, and got 100% of the 25 FLA Electors that year; the 2,912,253 votes for Gore counted as: ZERO.
How does that make sense? To give Florida more presence as a state? The same this year, as Clinton really did win by MORE than a MILLION votes--but, won her states by too much, lost too many of the close ones. I hope to work in my state to end this (NJ); I could be wrong, but maybe then the Rep. will grant us some small interest when were not "in the bag" already for the other side.
How does that make sense? To give Florida more presence as a state? The same this year, as Clinton really did win by MORE than a MILLION votes--but, won her states by too much, lost too many of the close ones. I hope to work in my state to end this (NJ); I could be wrong, but maybe then the Rep. will grant us some small interest when were not "in the bag" already for the other side.
9
All of Hillary's excess votes were counted in California, a state in which Trump did not campaign, although Hillary didn't spend much time there anyway. Had the rules been different, Trump would have used a different campaign strategy.
Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote. Silence from those now arguing that the rules should be changed.
Bill Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote. Silence from those now arguing that the rules should be changed.
4
Actually I voted for HC, and I sort of agree with you, but again it's a different perplexing issue: the third party candidate. In 1992 Clinton got .8 MILLION more votes than HW and won electoral by 202. The 19.7 votes to Perot were the issue there, much as George W's 537 vote "Victory" in was REALLY fueled and caused by the 2.7% of the total that went to Ralph Nadar--and led to 8 years of George W.
Undoubtedly a factor in 2016 as well.
Undoubtedly a factor in 2016 as well.
2
whats needed is the addition of 400 seats to house because the two senate seats per state is allowing to much power and electoral votes to unpopulated states. that is that 415 house seats is not a proper balance to 100 state's senate seats.
4
OMG, the whining won't stop. Sure, change the rules until you get the outcome you want.
11
California and most of the other states where people are complaining about the Republic's electoral structure freely and eagerly entered the Union with these terms and gladly slaughtered their neighbors to deny them the right leave it voluntarily. So whine away, no one around here is listening.
5
Who did Californians slaughter? Your post lost me.
3
Why should we trust an electoral process that values the votes of some people over others? We've repeatedly been told, "Every vote counts". Well, for a million Americans, it didn't.
13
Their vote counted in their respective state.
3
I'm sorry but people in the US have choices ... they get to choose where they live. For my entire lifetime since the 40s, the cities have always had jobs ... sometimes on a boom or bust cycle, e.g. Houston, Seattle, Detroit. You moved where the jobs were. In some cases, you moved to keep a job. In some cases, people who worked in rural areas had unions that pumped up their wages. Stop bemoaning that jobs and wages suck in rural areas ... Move.
14
I think you will find, when Texas becomes a "purple state" or a "blue state," that the Democrats will be quite content with the electoral college.
8
gonna happen. it's the next california.
3
2015 U.S. Census Population is estimated @ 321 Million. 181 Million live in states whose electors are assigned to Trump and 140 Million live in states whose electors are assigned to Clinton. That's 56% Red, 44% Blue.
4
Odd how the NY Times discovers that rural voters have more power right after its chosen candidate loses. This aspect of the American political system is long settled, and I don't remember anyone at the Times complaining when Obama won Iowa. The power of the rural vote is only problematic when it doesn't vote for the "right" candidate.
Never change, NY Times.
Never change, NY Times.
12
Once again, the New York Times has published material that has no news content associated with it.
There is absolutely nothing "new" about people moaning about our electoral system when their candidate happens to lose - the same people who loved it, when their candidate happened to win!
Please send out some real reporters, and tell something that we don't already know. It's time to stop being a "Upper West Side" propaganda sheet, and start being a great newspaper again.
There is absolutely nothing "new" about people moaning about our electoral system when their candidate happens to lose - the same people who loved it, when their candidate happened to win!
Please send out some real reporters, and tell something that we don't already know. It's time to stop being a "Upper West Side" propaganda sheet, and start being a great newspaper again.
10
As a rural resident out here (35 miles to the nearest grocery store or Walmart), I agree that between the farm program and other federal largesse, the rural areas benefit get benefits much in excess relative to their population as well as representation. This needs to change.
15
Thank you for your honesty.
4
America is enslaved by an archaic and profoundly unfair system. Hillary won the election, pure and simple.
19
No, it works fine. the electoral college did its job as designed to keep Ca. and NY dictating to the rest of the country.
It's only unfair because it went against your team.
It's only unfair because it went against your team.
6
NY and CA SHOULD dictate to the rest of the country. They are they most economically important states and all of the best people live there.
2
One remedy would be to allow for 3rd party candidates - or all candidates - to announce that their votes will be switched over to the candidate they would prefer to get them post election. Thus you could go ahead and vote Stein, for instance, with no fear as she would be able to switch them to Clinton. To create a compelling majority where one may be perceived to be lacking. In the current process those folks are disenfranchised as well. All votes should matter.
6
It is important to note that all the small states - RI, Hawaii, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, and MA are all solidly democratic. In all fairness, I'm sure you would agree that these should be merged since their Senators are clearly out of line with the Senators from much larger states.
5
Out of line with larger states like California?
3
Change the game. Let's see what will happen. But let's not be bitter about the past.
2
Well done Ms Badger! I knew your line of thinking but you really fleshed it out well and brought more things to light I hadn't thought about. I'm sure change will happen to the system but not soon enough for most of us here.
2
Mookie below has one good point to his diatribe: "So move to the sticks, my Progressive Friends. That's where the power is and will remain."
That is what we must do. Move in a block for, say 10 years. Time enough for a new census to be done and flip it. We reform the electoral college once and for all and begin to live in a democracy.
That is what we must do. Move in a block for, say 10 years. Time enough for a new census to be done and flip it. We reform the electoral college once and for all and begin to live in a democracy.
5
Uncap the House of Representatives is where we start on this problem. The Framers never expected that it would be capped, as it has been since WWI.
9
Exactly! Wyoming has a pop. of 600,000 make that the rule of thumb for a rep and we go from 435 to 525 reps in Congress and the apportionment will be fairer.
3
Focusing on abolishing the electoral college is a good first step. It's fundamental unfairness is easy to understand.
16
No state will vote to give up it's power. Its not going to be abolished and to even waste time on this subject just shows how much the average citizen has no idea how a representative republic works. Democrats work under the delusion this is a democracy.
3
Republicans work under the delusion that this isn't.
2
i.think this paper owes it's readers an explanation of what the electoral college is, how it is allocated, and how it works (and as important, what the actual votes vs electoral college voting was, per state). there is all this talk of the "popular" vote which HRC apparently won. this would only be a story if any of the electoral college voted for Trump in spite of the actual votes for that area being cast for HRC. HRC appears to have won the coasts (and major Midwestern cities), where a plurality of the population lives. this should not be the way a president elected, the entire country has to be involved and the electoral college does just that. simply put it protects the minority view. if the liberal readers who voted for HRC do not understand that, then they don't understand the dangers of mob rule either....and that is both sad and dangerous. HRC apparently only paid attention to the major population centers....so much for being for everyone...
11
So you equate the popular vote with mob rule? Interesting. That was the eighteenth century view too, which is why the Electoral College came about. Do you think that those Trump rallies represented an enlightened minority?
It's pretty clear that we don't have to worry so much about the tyranny of the majority as the tyranny of the minority. There's no reason we should continue to disparage voters in our cities. They're real Americans too. They pay their taxes, they fight for their country, and they deserve equal representation.
The Electoral College is an anachronism whose time has passed. We need to implement a popular vote like every other Western democracy.
It's pretty clear that we don't have to worry so much about the tyranny of the majority as the tyranny of the minority. There's no reason we should continue to disparage voters in our cities. They're real Americans too. They pay their taxes, they fight for their country, and they deserve equal representation.
The Electoral College is an anachronism whose time has passed. We need to implement a popular vote like every other Western democracy.
6
"...this paper owes it's [sic] readers an explanation of what the electoral college is, how it is allocated, and how it works..."
Well, I learned about the electoral college in 8th grade so it's not that incredibly necessary for The Times to waste its time a would-be civics lesson.
And in case you don't want to google it, here's a wikipedia link to the election results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016.
Just scroll down and you'll find all the info you want on actual vs. electoral college votes.
Well, I learned about the electoral college in 8th grade so it's not that incredibly necessary for The Times to waste its time a would-be civics lesson.
And in case you don't want to google it, here's a wikipedia link to the election results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016.
Just scroll down and you'll find all the info you want on actual vs. electoral college votes.
2
And imagine how even more lopsided it would be without the massive voter suppression that Republicans used to reduce urban voting turnout nationwide.
28
Now. at least, the liberal version is undeniable. I'm so thrilled that Ms. Badger has come forward to try to justify the worst kind of lie that America has tried to justify since Vietnam and it's ALL LIBERAL. So, please tell Ms. Badger and all her urban paper pushing ilk to go pick their own fruit, their own lettuce, harvest her own wheat. their soy protein, make their own toss pillows and produce their own cars. Actually, I'd like them to find some of those ivy league college graduates including those with their masters or doctorates to sign up and defend their own country or at least do SOME kind of national or international duty like the Peace Corp. Really, we rural Americans would truly appreciate it as long as it doesn't devolve into some sociopathic tendency to blame us or the very hard working people that actually produce something and keep their faux liberal, very undeserving, elitist opinions and thus benefactors afloat.
10
Oh haha that's right the only true American has spoken. We can do all that as long as we get out full tax dollars back from the modern day confederacy that is once again holding back the future.
3
Yes we want Calexut! Boycott Deplorables!
3
I think the article was questioning why rural America has more power per person. Not advocating that it should have less power per head. Are you seriously arguing that you deserve more say in this country because you freely choose to live in a rural area? If we can't agree that every citizen deserves equal treatment and say in the government then basic respect is missing. I'm not disrespecting what you do.
3
I grew up in a rural area: a logging town of about 2000 people. I agree completely with this article. I don't feel like the people I grew up with deserve more resources and power than my new neighbors in the city I live in now. The system must change.
52
California will not be ruled by small, rural, racist states.
23
Like Vermont and New Hampshire?
2
The author claims that "equal state representation in the Senate is the only provision in the Constitution that cannot be amended." Says who?
2
Article V of the Constitution governs amendments and provides "that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" -- exactly what the author describes. This is the full text of Article V:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
2
Check the link provided in the article.
Also note that each State must have a Republican Form of Government.
Also note that each State must have a Republican Form of Government.
1
Here is data from "How Much Does Your State Collect in Taxes Per Capita?" AK is No. 2 ($7005), WY No 7 ($3771), CA No 11 ($3490), TX No 42, ($1970) and FL No 48 ($1820).
1
Those are state taxes. For every dollar paid in federal taxes, the following states get the most federal dollars in return:
South Carolina
North Dakota
Florida
Louisiana
Alabama
Hawaii
Mississippi
New Mexico
Kentucky
Indiana
South Carolina
North Dakota
Florida
Louisiana
Alabama
Hawaii
Mississippi
New Mexico
Kentucky
Indiana
11
So what is the breaking point? Shall we suffer the abridgment of larger and larger numbers of voters? For the crime of living in California? New York? Massachusetts? 550,000 with Gore. We looked the other way. Closing on 2,000,000 with Clinton. In the face of white supremacists taking up the Trump mantle. Will we look the other way? How far do we go with the electoral college that was invented to support slave owners? The electoral college that is poised to open that very door once more - if you can pin these supremacists down on that they really and truly want?
In 2020, if we are extant as a nation, will we be OK with a margin of 5,000,000? Will that be OK? 10,000,000? There ARE more of us than them. And hopefully sooner rather than later we WILL make that count.
In 2020, if we are extant as a nation, will we be OK with a margin of 5,000,000? Will that be OK? 10,000,000? There ARE more of us than them. And hopefully sooner rather than later we WILL make that count.
43
We are not the minority. We should keep reminding each other of that. Most Americans will not tolerate this racist misogynistic imbecile. We are not the minority.
9
How about holding capitalists to their own standard and allocating Electoral College votes - or whatever you want to call them - on the basis of each state's percentage contribution to the overall national GDP? My guess is that under this distribution Al Gore would have won in a blow out and both Kerry in 2004 and Hillary now would have eked out victories - I recall reading in the NYT that the 20 Kerry states had a larger collective GDP than the 30 Bush states in 2004.
14
PC,
Are you absolutely sure that the Blue States don't overpay their employees
and underpay for what they receive from the Red States ?
After all you can't eat Stocks/Derivatives/Computer Chips.
Are you absolutely sure that the Blue States don't overpay their employees
and underpay for what they receive from the Red States ?
After all you can't eat Stocks/Derivatives/Computer Chips.
4
Stop whining! Republicans will bring more power to the rich. The same has been happening under the democrats. This is America!
1
Ive read about a million comments saying that the blue states should leave the Union.
Stop even wasting your time thinking thats even possible. Also, why are you so willing to juat abandon millions of people, but then turn around and celebrate diversity and inclusiveness?
Its impossible to leave the Union, the last time a state tried it we had a Civil War. You cant leave the Union without fighting a military that isnt actually controlled by any states, a military that has 11 aircraft carriers and could destroy you and your little gun from a mile up before you could even blink. So if you arent willing to get your gun and fight the United States military, then you should stop wasting your time talking about succession.
It would be funny to see an army of super liberals learning to be soldiers. So many people would get shot in the foot.
Stop even wasting your time thinking thats even possible. Also, why are you so willing to juat abandon millions of people, but then turn around and celebrate diversity and inclusiveness?
Its impossible to leave the Union, the last time a state tried it we had a Civil War. You cant leave the Union without fighting a military that isnt actually controlled by any states, a military that has 11 aircraft carriers and could destroy you and your little gun from a mile up before you could even blink. So if you arent willing to get your gun and fight the United States military, then you should stop wasting your time talking about succession.
It would be funny to see an army of super liberals learning to be soldiers. So many people would get shot in the foot.
9
Let's move beyond the electoral college and view the disproportionate advantage Republican's and their minority supporters have because of the filibuster in the Senate and House (so called Hastert rule). SCOTUS sealed it with Citizens United and money flowed to state houses across the US who gerrymandered their districts to red. The majority is ruled by the minority- what would Jefferson say about that? President Obama who won the electoral college and popular vote at more than 50 % twice, could not even get a Supreme Court nominee hearing let alone an up and down vote. Our system is broken and many Americans are ignorant as to why. Shame on us...
26
The rules of the electoral college were known to both major candidate campaigns, and therefore there are no surprises. Clinton's campaign obviously made strategic errors in overlooking the concerns of voters in Rust Belt states, where the majority of "flipped" electors occurred since the 2012 election. Running up a lop sided majority in states like California and New York is meaningless. Convincing voters in enough states to get to 270 better assures that the diverse concerns of voters nationwide are addressed.
Bill Clinton expressed concern in this election that blue collar workers were being overlooked. His advice was largely ignored. It is a travesty that states like West Virginia have become reliable red states in Presidential elections. But so long as those people's livelihoods and personal interests are dismissed and the people classified as deplorables, elections can and will be lost.
Bill Clinton expressed concern in this election that blue collar workers were being overlooked. His advice was largely ignored. It is a travesty that states like West Virginia have become reliable red states in Presidential elections. But so long as those people's livelihoods and personal interests are dismissed and the people classified as deplorables, elections can and will be lost.
22
As Bill said - "It's the economy stupid" Hillary ignored that. What does that say about Hillary?
4
Remind me of any other election where the person or policy wins with less votes? PB
2
The candidate with the most votes in each state won the electors from that State. That was the rules going in, and should have been understood by everyone.
3
The size of the House of Representatives was set in 1911 at 435 - at the time the average district was about 215,000 people. The population of the USA is more than 3.2 time what it was in 1911. Isn't it time to increase the number of congresspersons? So that they can more accurately represent and reflect the America of today instead of the American of 1780?
28
Excellent point.
2
This is exactly the problem and it is causing the misalignment between popular vote and EC. All the discussion about abolishing the EC is misguided. The House needs to be 2-3x the size it is now and all these imbalances will go away.
2
Perhaps major cities should become states. In some cases, of course, the surrounding countryside might revert to red, so the risks and benefits would need to be weighed carefully. But each of the four largest boroughs of New York is populous enough to be an independent state; even if the rest of New York State went red, that would probably still yield a net gain of 6 blue-state Senators, tip the House in the Democrats favor, and go a long way toward making the Electoral College more representative.
16
I am glad that I do not live in a democracy. Democracy is just another form of tyranny, giving unlimited authority to 50% plus one. Freedom requires a limited government in which power is fragmented between multiple layers and institutions, limited in scope, requiring sustained supermajorities of multiple interests for major changes, and with some areas completely excluded from authority no matter how large or passionate the majority that wishes otherwise.
7
You are a smart person; well put, brilliant!
1
Think you're missing the point!
3
Yes, giving unlimited authority to a minority is sooooo much better. nothing could go wrong with that plan.
Plus I suspect you are conveniently perverting the notion of "tyranny of the majority" as it would otherwise apply as a valid argument in terms of access to civil rights. Governance that affects all equally is entirely another matter, and should wield to the majority.
Plus I suspect you are conveniently perverting the notion of "tyranny of the majority" as it would otherwise apply as a valid argument in terms of access to civil rights. Governance that affects all equally is entirely another matter, and should wield to the majority.
4
I've lived in town/gown situations my whole life ( admission: I'm currently part of the "gown") and have never, ever heard any of my mostly reasonably affluent and doctoral degreed friends and coworkers make fun of the working class. It just doesn't happen. I really hate to make the point that the obverse is not true. Believe me, I've spent enough time on the "other side" to know.
35
It's all changed now. Look at comments in major newspapers. We're not going to be quiet any longer.
3
Two senators per state is inviolate in our Constitution and can't be amended. Given that California has about 65 times the population of Wyoming, this is wildly anti-democratic. Ok. Fine. Let's accept that.
We could, however, change the number of electors per state to be equal to the number of representatives per state (i.e., from 538 electors to 438 electors). This is incremental at best. But better than nothing.
Some states have passed a law that says: all our electors will vote for the winner of the nation-wide popular vote. But we won't switch to that until states totally 270 electoral votes have signed the same law. This is probably our best hope for 1 person, 1 vote for presidential elections. Even with this, rural states will have disproportionate power in our state and federal governments.
We could, however, change the number of electors per state to be equal to the number of representatives per state (i.e., from 538 electors to 438 electors). This is incremental at best. But better than nothing.
Some states have passed a law that says: all our electors will vote for the winner of the nation-wide popular vote. But we won't switch to that until states totally 270 electoral votes have signed the same law. This is probably our best hope for 1 person, 1 vote for presidential elections. Even with this, rural states will have disproportionate power in our state and federal governments.
12
It's dangerous for states to consider laws that would require electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote, because (1) we will have recounts in all fifty states, every time the election is close; (2) the states which already suppress votes with "surgical precision" as North Carolina have done, will respond by more intense measures to suppress voting; and (3) more elections will end up being decided by the Supreme Court.
I'd rather the Democrats figure out how to expand their base, but even if they cannot, I'm confident that as soon as the GOP starts messing around with Medicare and Society Security, and/or the minute GOP can manage to overturn Roe V. Wade, voters won't need much persuasion to stop voting Republican.
I'd rather the Democrats figure out how to expand their base, but even if they cannot, I'm confident that as soon as the GOP starts messing around with Medicare and Society Security, and/or the minute GOP can manage to overturn Roe V. Wade, voters won't need much persuasion to stop voting Republican.
For the people complaining about voter turnout--
Part of the reason many people do not turn out is that they feel that their votes do not count, because they are not in a swing state. This is effective disenfranchisement of non-swing state voters. Additionally, the electoral college and its swing state system give white voters (not just rural voters) a disproportionate amount of power.
America gave democracy to the world, but notice we didn't give anyone else our backwards system of unequal representation.
Part of the reason many people do not turn out is that they feel that their votes do not count, because they are not in a swing state. This is effective disenfranchisement of non-swing state voters. Additionally, the electoral college and its swing state system give white voters (not just rural voters) a disproportionate amount of power.
America gave democracy to the world, but notice we didn't give anyone else our backwards system of unequal representation.
27
Greece gave Democracy to the world, but still a good point.
2
Excellent point!
Suppose we have a system where we provide massive benefits and require nothing except your patronage. Population centers with submissive voters. Soon they out number the providers. Ah. The founders recognized the flaws and that is why we have the electoral college.
6
What an insulting stereotype of city dwellers. This is the contempt of a rural voter toward urban voters. It's sheer bigotry.
2
It's exactly the opposite. We are paying for the privilege of having the least populated states to complain about us and unfairly vote against what we want!
3
One of the Times' most critical articles, and the forward via email function does not work on iPads. The perils of technology. Important information, nicely explained. Too bad I can't share.
3
How many readers know that the Constitution (Article 5) ensures equal state suffrage in the Senate? Without this clause, a federal government would never have existed in the first place. But there is a loop hole (Article 4, Section 3). With consent of Congress, California, for example could break up into smaller states, adding additional Senators and, consequently, electors. For example, why should there be a North and South Dakota and not a North and South California (or a middle California too)?
26
Yes but it takes 75% approval of the other states and senate. Never, ever happen.
Texas, wrongly, has an out, their joinder included paper work that giges them a claim to leave. Except, once they join they are in and have to dance to the same drummer. Can not leave, hey they , aka Texas, rip Ny, Calif, Mass, Conn., New Jersey, off , they pay for your por poor farmers.
Can one say booo hoooo.
Ciao
Texas, wrongly, has an out, their joinder included paper work that giges them a claim to leave. Except, once they join they are in and have to dance to the same drummer. Can not leave, hey they , aka Texas, rip Ny, Calif, Mass, Conn., New Jersey, off , they pay for your por poor farmers.
Can one say booo hoooo.
Ciao
1
If the rural states are so powerful, then why are their inhabitants so woefully ignored except once every four years? Clinton lost states she should have won.
5
And continue the obstruction, ignorance and sanctimony of the Homestead Laws!
1
We elect every other office in the nation by majority vote, so why not let the president the same way?
20
It is even worse if a state is big and in the north. The north has been subsidizing the south since 1950. States such as NY and Pa dole out much more than they receive back. Certainly less than a dollar for every dollar sent to DC. In contrast, the poo South has gotten subsidies. This was done so the wealth would be balanced, but the North has gotten royally s....ed.
22
The founding fathers were so, so brilliant as to protect the less populous states who, just one example, feed the others who might be so ignorant as to cut off the hands that feed them.
They get value in return for their dollars. How many Minuteman missile silos are there on Long Island. What we are engaged in, that your post misses, is that it is an enormous trade system where Big States pay the Small States that are dirty, dangerous, and unpleasant ... yet somehow necessary for a civilized society.
2
The simple answer is that so much of spending has been allocated to the federal government rather than the states. Materially decrease federal taxation and spending, and you won't have some states supporting the other states that produce less.
1
So; when is Donald Trump and his supporters going to decry the Electoral College results? After all, up until a few days before the election he was accusing the E.C. of being the biggest obstacle to democracy.
17
No matter what Trump does or how he performs, the rural vote will still the same, largely Republican.
5
Once again the coastal elites are looking to scapegoat someone for their failed agenda and disastrous candidate.
14
All 1,200,000 more of us (and rising) than you. How outrageous they should want to matter in a democracy. Would you readily impose your minority power on them to accept your agenda? Shall we sit idly by and let you impose it?
8
But who more people vote for. How would you like it if the senator you supported lost by 2% of the votes but was declared the winner?
3
You mean the coastal 'majority' don't you and as we seem to be paying out of our pockets for the less populated middle states, how about saying thank you. And the 'disastrous candidate' is the one just about to through this country down the toilet... I'd learn how to hold your breath cause he's taking us all down, except the coastal elite, because that's where he's from! Wakey, wakey!
5
What's the percentage of the US population residing in the states comprising Trump's Electoral College majority? What is the minimum % of the population required to elect a president?
3
2015 U.S. Census Population is estimated @ 321 Million. 181 Million live in states whose electors are assigned to Trump and 140 Million live in states whose electors are assigned to Clinton. That's 56% Red, 44% Blue.
1
Lol, John, So you assign the political afiliations of all those too young to vote to their parents? That's not going to backfire on you at all.
2
Perhaps those urban voters that feel so disgusted about losing an election, should remember the glee that was being espoused by the cable media outlets when it appeared Trump nation was about to suffer a huge electoral college defeat at the hands of the self anointed 1st Woman President.
The funny part of this issue is that I didn't hear it once in 2008 or 2012? Now it's an issue that requires the 220 year system to be scrapped. Leave it alone, it's served us well for a long time and the purpose of it was pretty clear then and now, don't ignore the constituents in smaller states, it could cost you an election and much more.
We have pretty solid checks and balances for the people who feel Trump is the second coming of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Ghengis Khan. Just ask Chuck Schumer how positively obstructionist he can be if provoked.
Those old privileged white guys didn't trust power in one man's hand anymore than the anti trump people do today. Relax, the republic will survive this pseudo apocalypse.
The funny part of this issue is that I didn't hear it once in 2008 or 2012? Now it's an issue that requires the 220 year system to be scrapped. Leave it alone, it's served us well for a long time and the purpose of it was pretty clear then and now, don't ignore the constituents in smaller states, it could cost you an election and much more.
We have pretty solid checks and balances for the people who feel Trump is the second coming of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Ghengis Khan. Just ask Chuck Schumer how positively obstructionist he can be if provoked.
Those old privileged white guys didn't trust power in one man's hand anymore than the anti trump people do today. Relax, the republic will survive this pseudo apocalypse.
9
Small states get extra representation in the Senate. Each state has two senators, so, for example, Wyoming gets equal weight with California, etc. This is more than enough to ensure small states are ignored. No reason to give small states an even more exaggerated over representation in the presidential election. You're taking votes away from people in the big states. Let's make it one person, one vote.
5
You are of course annoyingly right in most cases, except he owns both the house and senate and doesn't seem to be wasting any time turning this country upside down. His picks for top positions are a pretty clear message to everyone what his intentions are and if I was anything but a privileged middle-aged white guy (which I am), I'd be pretty bloody scared right now!
2
I could never have believed that it was possible to win a presidential election without the Black and Latino vote. Boy, was I wrong. What do we do now?
4
All the more reason to eliminate the Electoral College, and to draw House districts through nonpartisan committees.
15
For gawd's sake quit whining & making up nonsense.
(1) The structure of the electoral college has ZERO to do with slavery, In fact the 5 southern states were at a disadvantage because a large portion of their population only counted as 3/5ths a person. That meant the 5 southern states got FEWER House of Representatives members & FEWER electoral votes than they would have if slaves were counted as a full person. It was the 8 northern states that did NOT want to count a slave as person -gave them more power.
(2) The Electoral College is a hybrid.
* The drafters did not want to use the British Parliament model where the leader of the party with the most MPs becomes head of the government. It would have made the POTUS controlled of the Congress.
* They weren't comfortable with direct popular election because they had doubts about the masses. Kind of like the Democrats now & the Remainers in the UK howling about "ignorant voters" & "mob populism"
* It is a modified version of the Holy Roman Empire selection of the Emperor which each province cast a vote. Here it is the states casting the vote. There was a nod to the masses by letting the state's popular vote in a state dictate how the state elector votes are cast.
(3) This whining is a waste of time & space. Only way to really change it is by Amendment (2/3rds of Senate & House & 2/3rds of the states)
Takes 34 states. Good luck on getting the small or red states agreeing to give large blue states more power.
(1) The structure of the electoral college has ZERO to do with slavery, In fact the 5 southern states were at a disadvantage because a large portion of their population only counted as 3/5ths a person. That meant the 5 southern states got FEWER House of Representatives members & FEWER electoral votes than they would have if slaves were counted as a full person. It was the 8 northern states that did NOT want to count a slave as person -gave them more power.
(2) The Electoral College is a hybrid.
* The drafters did not want to use the British Parliament model where the leader of the party with the most MPs becomes head of the government. It would have made the POTUS controlled of the Congress.
* They weren't comfortable with direct popular election because they had doubts about the masses. Kind of like the Democrats now & the Remainers in the UK howling about "ignorant voters" & "mob populism"
* It is a modified version of the Holy Roman Empire selection of the Emperor which each province cast a vote. Here it is the states casting the vote. There was a nod to the masses by letting the state's popular vote in a state dictate how the state elector votes are cast.
(3) This whining is a waste of time & space. Only way to really change it is by Amendment (2/3rds of Senate & House & 2/3rds of the states)
Takes 34 states. Good luck on getting the small or red states agreeing to give large blue states more power.
16
"because a large portion of their population only counted as 3/5ths a person"....
Don't forget, those 3/5th-ers could not vote. It had everything to do with slavery.
Don't forget, those 3/5th-ers could not vote. It had everything to do with slavery.
10
Well explained AnnS.
So many of the people who write here are just plain nuts.
So many of the people who write here are just plain nuts.
1
excellent post! this is what the NY TIMES should be writing about! not letting everyone continue to whine about the "popular vote" before fully understanding what the electoral college system is all about! thank you for this post!!
4
California has about 39.145 million people and it has 55 electoral college votes or 1 vote per 712,000 people.
Wyoming has 586,000 people and 3 electoral college votes or 1 vote per 195,000 people.
The national average is about 600,000 people per EC vote.
Missouri is ranked 18th in population with about 600,000 per EC vote.
That means 32 states have above average power in the electoral college.
The same math can be applied to the Senate.
Wyoming has 586,000 people and 3 electoral college votes or 1 vote per 195,000 people.
The national average is about 600,000 people per EC vote.
Missouri is ranked 18th in population with about 600,000 per EC vote.
That means 32 states have above average power in the electoral college.
The same math can be applied to the Senate.
45
Correct. Boy, you're good at math!
Charismatic democrats never seem to have a problem with it.
1
Hence, we are not, nor have we ever been, a democracy. We are a Republic of now 50 states ("...the republic for which it stands".) Most evidently obvious in the Senate's distribution of power, i.e., two from every state no matter the population, (Wyoming for example!) When will we acknowledge this fact and not have to rehash it out every election cycle. Let's work on doing something about it!. A SERIUO Constitutional amendment effort should be underway, since it could still take decades to get anything like it passed.
7
excellent post! sadly, considering the educational system in our country, this asinine conversation will never cease to be an issue at every election cycle when the "favorite" candidate wins the "popular" vote, but loses the election...people making this argument were failed by the educational system...
What is biased is this piece.
3
Explain in detail. How so?
What a bunch of whiners. The difference is about 1%. Maybe if it was 10% I might consider the argument, but probably not even then. Take out the illegal vote by illegal immigrants who were allowed to vote, and tell me what the numbers are then. Oh, that's right, you can't or don't want to. What is interesting to me is that I watched the electoral count and popular vote count all night on Washington Post and Bing, and I don't recall any time when Hillary was ever ahead in either. Just where are you pulling all these votes out of ... I am not sure this passes the smell test.
7
Right, get out of the argument by making up a conspiracy. If the Dems are creating false ballots, you would think they could have distributed them to the states where only a few thousand would have topped the balance.
7
Illegal immigrants' vote? Please...
1
The rural power in the Senate is greater still. It may take 17% to get a majority, but with the new 40 vote rule, it takes only 10% to block action. That's getting close to the old Polish Sejm veto.
9
If the urban centers withheld their tax dollars the rural centers would fall in line. The modern version of a civil war.
20
I am English and live in the UK, this is my first post in the NYT.
I wonder, do Americans realise how Trump's victory is seen outside the US. In the UK most people just cannot understand how intelligent, well educated people could possibly consider voting for such a man, his many vulgar, offensive comments are well known and not worth repeating, but not only did they/you considerate it, you actually went out in such numbers as to get this buffoon elected.
We hear that 'Oh, what he said in the debates wasn't really what he believes' and 'He said what he said for electioneering purposes' and the rest of it. If his team's defence of him is that he is a liar then this is a very dangerous period we are entering.
He views on the economy, migration/integration, climate change are potentially catastrophic for the rest of the world, not just for US citizens.
I wonder, do Americans realise how Trump's victory is seen outside the US. In the UK most people just cannot understand how intelligent, well educated people could possibly consider voting for such a man, his many vulgar, offensive comments are well known and not worth repeating, but not only did they/you considerate it, you actually went out in such numbers as to get this buffoon elected.
We hear that 'Oh, what he said in the debates wasn't really what he believes' and 'He said what he said for electioneering purposes' and the rest of it. If his team's defence of him is that he is a liar then this is a very dangerous period we are entering.
He views on the economy, migration/integration, climate change are potentially catastrophic for the rest of the world, not just for US citizens.
64
The reason Trump won was because the Democrats put up the only candidate who was worse.
5
I spoken with many non-Americans who don't view it the way you say. Many people in China, for example, like Trump. I've spoken to a number of Muslims (for Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Somalia) who like Trump. I first learned that Trump was winning in an e-mail from Canton.
maybe you just do not understand how despised the shifting establishment candidate HRC was...
1
I feel like Wyoming and the Dakotas should be mergered into 1 state. Split California into NoCal & SoCal. And bring Puerto Rico into the union.
10
" How USA: can say they has a authentic Democracy?
2
It was never meant to be a democracy. We are a republic.
1
we don't. ..it's a republic...
1
Some thoughts on making our pre-Urban match the our urban society with vast almost empty sections of our country. Reduce the number of states in every region as follows so that not just the empty Western states are merged:
In the Northeast: Merge RI with either MA or CT. Merge DE with MD or Penn.
In the South: Merge West VA with KY (more similar than with VA). The other Southern(Confederate) states are large & populated as are the Middle Western states.
In the West: Merge the Dakotas. Merge Nebraska with Kansas, as they once were pre-Civil War. Merger Montana with Idaho. Merge Wyoming with Colorado. Each Merged state would have 2 senators & at least 1 Rep.
The Senate seats (14) saved would be allocated with the 4 most population getting 2 more Senators & next 6 getting 1 more Senator.
The 7 House members would be allocated by population with others after each state receives 1 member.
This plans saves money for tax payers in the Merged states and partly recognizes the dramatic changes in our country over the past 200+ years.
If that is too radical then adjust the number of electors by population with every state getting at least 1 elector NOT 3 and the balance allocated by
population. This reduces the bias toward poor & depopulated states & against our states with huge populations, i.e. CA, FL, NY, TX, etc.
In the Northeast: Merge RI with either MA or CT. Merge DE with MD or Penn.
In the South: Merge West VA with KY (more similar than with VA). The other Southern(Confederate) states are large & populated as are the Middle Western states.
In the West: Merge the Dakotas. Merge Nebraska with Kansas, as they once were pre-Civil War. Merger Montana with Idaho. Merge Wyoming with Colorado. Each Merged state would have 2 senators & at least 1 Rep.
The Senate seats (14) saved would be allocated with the 4 most population getting 2 more Senators & next 6 getting 1 more Senator.
The 7 House members would be allocated by population with others after each state receives 1 member.
This plans saves money for tax payers in the Merged states and partly recognizes the dramatic changes in our country over the past 200+ years.
If that is too radical then adjust the number of electors by population with every state getting at least 1 elector NOT 3 and the balance allocated by
population. This reduces the bias toward poor & depopulated states & against our states with huge populations, i.e. CA, FL, NY, TX, etc.
9
Ah. The backbone of the nation. The sturdy yoyo-ry.
3
Trump won 30 states. Clinton won 20. Because we live in the United STATES of America, that means something. If you want to live in the Disunited Metropoli of America, that is your choice. But be careful of what you wish for.
Example: it is now believed that when the final votes are in Clinton's margin of victory in the popular vote will be less than her margin of victory in one state: California. Do you want only Californians to have the final say in who is elected President of the United States?
Example: it is now believed that when the final votes are in Clinton's margin of victory in the popular vote will be less than her margin of victory in one state: California. Do you want only Californians to have the final say in who is elected President of the United States?
13
California has the 7th largest economy in the world. They should have more political clout than Wyoming.
4
Their votes also count.
1
Yes I do.
3
This is a hold-over from the reason the Electoral College system was created in the first place: to shore up the voting power of slave states, which were more rural and had smaller white populations. Now, it continues to contribute to what is-- as Trump said-- a "rigged" election. Disenfranchised, rural whites in places like Wyoming and Idaho now have more voting power than the 1.5 million people who voted for Hillary instead. The result is that America's racist, provincial heartland is on display for the whole world to see.
31
I generally support the current structure of the House of Representatives and the Senate, current members notwithstanding. I do not, however, support the same principle applied to the election of the President and Vice-President.
And this is not just an urban-rural, democrat-republican issue. Given the ceiling on the size of the House (an early 20th century limitation), a voter in Wyoming is worth nearly two voters from neighboring Montana. Both states have a single congressional district, but Montana is just shy of meriting a second. I find that hard to justify.
And this is not just an urban-rural, democrat-republican issue. Given the ceiling on the size of the House (an early 20th century limitation), a voter in Wyoming is worth nearly two voters from neighboring Montana. Both states have a single congressional district, but Montana is just shy of meriting a second. I find that hard to justify.
6
'“When we talk about small-state bias, all of that was an intentional policy choice,” said Jowei Chen, a political scientist at the University of Michigan. Republicans in Congress passed the 1862 Homestead Act, offering free land to settlers who would move to territories that would eventually become states — creating more Senate seats and Electoral College votes for a Republican Party eager to keep government control away from Southern Democrats."
Really no different than the current Democratic strategy of legalizing millions of illegal immigrants to maintain power.
Additionally, had the objective been to win the popular vote, the outcome may have been different because the campaign strategy would have been different. Arguing that the popular vote should win the election when the electoral vote determines the winner is like arguing that the football team with the most yards of offense should win the game despite the scoreboard.
Really no different than the current Democratic strategy of legalizing millions of illegal immigrants to maintain power.
Additionally, had the objective been to win the popular vote, the outcome may have been different because the campaign strategy would have been different. Arguing that the popular vote should win the election when the electoral vote determines the winner is like arguing that the football team with the most yards of offense should win the game despite the scoreboard.
5
Your third paragraph contains a decent, if speculative, argument. The second is bunk: legalizing immigrants does not automatically mean giving them citizenship in time for the next election, and nor does it buy their vote. In any case, white power is on the way out. Unfortunately, the disproportionate influence of rural areas will limit the electoral effects of real demographic changes for the foreseeable future.
2
One thing that I haven't seen much - there are some individuals in states that know that their vote won't count. Example - a Trump voter in California may stay home because the state has been written off as a Clinton strong- hold. So the total vote count does not reflect the full population. There are only a handful of states where the individual may feel that their vote counts.
10
Democrats in most Midwestern states would have counted if they had gone out to vote. Too many did not. See article in Sunday's Week in Review that show 6 states that would have made a difference for Hillary if she had stumped more in the small towns. Small towns are those of 50k or LESS and they are scattered all over the states. If you see CA and who voted where, the small towns were bright red in the hills but bright blue on the coastlines.New Yorker article on Obama's legacy by their editor talks of small town he visited in 2008 De Qoiun south of Springfield, IL that is more like Kansas rural than Chicago. That's why Illinois is more purple than blue. Blue wins the majority via Chicago and a couple of larger towns but most other areas are red all over. But most other Midwestern states are like Illinois also--one or 2 large cities and all others are 15K to 50K with a bunch scattered around that don't have 500 people. But they still count. They need to be included and informed and taken into account by politicians. Democrats MUST spread out and see their constituents in some place other than the largest city of the state. The small towns are important, need jobs and re-training but no one is paying attention. Technology and alternate energy could count a lot for many Midwestern States to train the makers and workers with living salaries. They'll vote Democrat in most cases--exp under 40. Those under 40 are mostly independent voters and not tied to one.
4
And just as logically might a Clinton voter in NY, CA, or IL stay home because, after all, Clinton will have his or her state's electoral votes.
Is it possible for the blue states to create a joint health care combine?
The Colorado ballot measure that called for a single-payer system failed at the polls. I think rightly, because no one state can have enough impact on the marketplace to drive the change that's needed and we would have made up the difference with some of the highest taxes in the country. In effect, paying twice.
But the blue states together could do this. Consider just New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois, Given the concentration of people, income, medical infrastructure and other resources, this combine could set up economies that would impose transparency of costs, and cause the health insurance companies to either reform or wither away.
Best of all, for states' rights advocates, it is not a compulsory federal program. Any state can join or leave. Let red state politicians explain to their constituents why they stay out.
The Colorado ballot measure that called for a single-payer system failed at the polls. I think rightly, because no one state can have enough impact on the marketplace to drive the change that's needed and we would have made up the difference with some of the highest taxes in the country. In effect, paying twice.
But the blue states together could do this. Consider just New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois, Given the concentration of people, income, medical infrastructure and other resources, this combine could set up economies that would impose transparency of costs, and cause the health insurance companies to either reform or wither away.
Best of all, for states' rights advocates, it is not a compulsory federal program. Any state can join or leave. Let red state politicians explain to their constituents why they stay out.
53
....plus California, Oregon, and Washington. Of course.
2
Massachusetts have single-payer healthcare in it works well for most situations.
1
Excellent idea.
Somehow, the imbalance between rural and urban states worked just fine when Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama were elected for 16 years. No rewriting of the Constitution (other than erasing the 2nd Amendment) was ever contemplated by the Left.
But now the sky is falling. The fragile snowflakes of the Left can't accept that Crooked Hillary lost. So the system must change.
But the system ain't changing, Ladies. You can't believe that Trump's campaign promises are about to be kept. The Wall will be built. And Mexico will pay for it. I can tell you that!
So move to the sticks, my Progressive Friends. That's where the power is and will remain.
Trump 2020. Peace and Prosperity
But now the sky is falling. The fragile snowflakes of the Left can't accept that Crooked Hillary lost. So the system must change.
But the system ain't changing, Ladies. You can't believe that Trump's campaign promises are about to be kept. The Wall will be built. And Mexico will pay for it. I can tell you that!
So move to the sticks, my Progressive Friends. That's where the power is and will remain.
Trump 2020. Peace and Prosperity
9
Trump sold you the wall.
I have a bridge to sell you.
If he builds the wall, I'll buy back the bridge....
I have a bridge to sell you.
If he builds the wall, I'll buy back the bridge....
7
They system is skewed towards rural areas because the House is capped. It's not the way the system was designed by the founders.
2
Oh how liberals try and justify long standing precedent (200+ years) in the face of a stinging defeat.. I've read so many here lamenting, "...But why should one vote have more power than another? This arrangement is contrary to justice." Good point. It's rich, however, that the same liberals that feel cheated under such a system continue to disproportionately tax the the well to do - admonishing them to pay their 'fair share'? Equal voting power, equal tax rates? Apparently not. Republicans might sacrifice the electoral college for such.
3
You do realize that the wealthy and corporations pay a disproportionately smaller percentage of their incomes in taxes than the rest of us, right? What's next, the angry working class demanding the end of the estate tax that only matters to those with a net worth of greater than $5 million? This is the power of Fox News and its millionaire anchors. Oh, and the rich and corporations thank you for letting them fleece you.
3
Equal taxes? Would that apply to the likes of Trump as well?
2
Michigan gets back more federal dollars than it sends to Washington. Guess you are a 47%er!.
2
OMG. How aweful that New York, Illinois, and California don't get to dictate policy to the rest of the country just because that's where most people live. Heaven forbid our system require an ideologically diverse coalition to actually gain power
Never mind the irony that before the election all the press was about the baked in advantage the Electoral College provides for Democrats, because in order for a Republican to win they have to run the table on the swing states.
Never mind the irony that before the election all the press was about the baked in advantage the Electoral College provides for Democrats, because in order for a Republican to win they have to run the table on the swing states.
17
The electoral college does not favor the Democratic party. Please read the following: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/
4
We probably should just split apart into 3 pieces - West Coast, Middle America, and Northeast. I expect we'd all just say good riddance to each other - no one needs to re-fight a civil war - i don't sense anyone wants to preserve this union anymore.
3
I think the next platform of the Democrats ought to be: move en masse to rural areas and register to vote asap. Ones that showed the slimmest of margins in a win for Trump. Only 2 years to go before the mid term elections.
5
Clinton and Trump both knew in advance the exact proportions of the population in each place. They knew exactly where political power resides. They both campaigned accordingly.
Clinton was completely informed on this and therefore has utterly no complaint. She could easily have said just a couple of things differently--changed her point of view on a couple of things--to attract more voters from those places where she needed electoral votes.
Of course, it couldn't have had anything to do with the e-mails and the bag of lies she carries with her, or her health problems. No, those had nothing to do with it.
Clinton was completely informed on this and therefore has utterly no complaint. She could easily have said just a couple of things differently--changed her point of view on a couple of things--to attract more voters from those places where she needed electoral votes.
Of course, it couldn't have had anything to do with the e-mails and the bag of lies she carries with her, or her health problems. No, those had nothing to do with it.
8
even worse, this was a candidate who apparently had no problems gaming the Democratic nominating process by "locking up" super delegate votes before any actual voting had been cast! it was so bad that I recall one delegate voting for HRC in direct contradiction to the voting taking good place in that delegate's area...but now? "oh, the horror! the electoral college must go!"...please
4
Health problems? Bag of lies? Could her problem actually have been voters who believe Alex Jones and fantasy news links on Facebook?
1
The Republicans have now lost the popular vote on six of the last seven elections, so it is more than clear that the United States is not a true democratic nation and it needs to be corrected if we don't want to become a country where a minority rules. The first thing we must do now is to pinpoint the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats did not lose the election; it was the anachronistic Electoral Collage that dictated that the winner be the candidate who lost the popular vote. So, let's stop the self-flagellation and let's find a way to correct all forms of undemocratic structures now in place so that future elections of president, senators, representatives and local governments follow the principle that majority rules, not the way around.
26
Two quick points:
1) The third paragraph states that democrats won the popular vote in 6 of last 7 elections. Simply not true. in each of his elections Bill Clinton had more people vote against him than for him. He won the electoral vote and I never heard people criticizing the system in that case.
2) I notice a lot of anti-rural sentiment on the comments. I wonder if some of the commenters have ever actually been anywhere rural (no, Aspen or the Hamptons don't count). This rural/urban discrepancy in voting this election in my mind validates the worries of the Constitutional framers. At the end of the day we are a diverse country, and this diversity also includes differences in urban versus rural living with all the different values that accompany each.
1) The third paragraph states that democrats won the popular vote in 6 of last 7 elections. Simply not true. in each of his elections Bill Clinton had more people vote against him than for him. He won the electoral vote and I never heard people criticizing the system in that case.
2) I notice a lot of anti-rural sentiment on the comments. I wonder if some of the commenters have ever actually been anywhere rural (no, Aspen or the Hamptons don't count). This rural/urban discrepancy in voting this election in my mind validates the worries of the Constitutional framers. At the end of the day we are a diverse country, and this diversity also includes differences in urban versus rural living with all the different values that accompany each.
11
The customary definition of winning the popular vote is getting more votes than any other candidate. Using this standard, the Dems did win the popular vote in 6 out of the 7 presidential elections, the exception being Kerry v. Bush in 2004. You seem to be requiring winning to mean getting more than 50% of the popular vote. By that standard, no one won the popular vote in 4 out of the last 7 presidential elections (1992, 1996, 2000, 2016).
11
You are correct that Clinton won time with less than 50% of the popular vote, but he had 5.5% more than the Republican candidate in 1992 and and 8.5% more in 1996. Since the two major parties won 80.5% and 90.5% of the vote in those elections, for most people, that means he won the popular vote (http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/popular-vote/).
4
An additional issue is that many of these predominantly rural states have far more counties than needed in the modern era. This means more government and more state and local taxes to support all of those county governments. They vote for "smaller government and lower taxes" but seem disinclined to reduce the costly bureaucracies in their own rather sparsely-populated states.
Arkansas has 75 counties, Oklahoma has 77, Iowa has 99, Kansas has 105, Kentucky has 120. In contrast, much larger California has only 58 counties.
Arkansas has 75 counties, Oklahoma has 77, Iowa has 99, Kansas has 105, Kentucky has 120. In contrast, much larger California has only 58 counties.
18
One need look no further than the name of our country to understand why the electoral college system exists. We are the United States. States. Multiple states united in purpose and in a federal government. Each state is an independent political entity with all of the rights not specifically granted by the states to the federal government. Note that it is the states that ratified the constitution--not the people. The states amend the constitution. Not the people.
I understand liberals want to control everyone. I get it. You want to tell control morality from a single point in the country--you want Obama to send out threatening letters to schools in every state across the country telling them how children should use the bathroom. This should be a national decision, using the bathroom should. We all need to pee in the same way so that no nobodys inalienable rights to pee are taken away.
This country should remain the United States of America, and it should not be converted into the Unified State of America.
I understand liberals want to control everyone. I get it. You want to tell control morality from a single point in the country--you want Obama to send out threatening letters to schools in every state across the country telling them how children should use the bathroom. This should be a national decision, using the bathroom should. We all need to pee in the same way so that no nobodys inalienable rights to pee are taken away.
This country should remain the United States of America, and it should not be converted into the Unified State of America.
15
It's the GOP that wants to control womens' bodies and suppress the voting rights of minorities. It's the President-elect who wants to intimidate free speech and assembly, and abridge freedom of the press. These are Constitutional Rights, every bit as important as the right to bear arms.
27
Interesting. Based on a number of comments here, income redistribution from the blue states to the red states seems to be a bad thing. But I thought the blue states wanted to reduce income inequality by redistributing wealth.
12
Catherine, the issue isn't one of redistributing wealth, it's that the red states get more than their fair share. If it were a matter of giving more money to poorer citizens that would be another matter entirely.
7
Ah, yes. Take a look at the Economic Innovation Groups's Distressed Communities Index Map. Pretty good fit with the blue state/red state map. Also telling is that 50% of new businesses formed since the recovery began are in only 20 counties in the entire country - mostly blue states. Understand I am not advocating income redistribution. My initial comment was a bit tongue in cheek, but making, I think, a fair point.
4
Catherine, tongue in cheek aside, aren't many of the regions of job, economic, and population growth in blue parts of red states? We are purple and most commenters don't want to believe that. The state borders are becoming increasingly irrelevant economically. Our rural landscape in both NY and Georgia is suffering while we argue ridiculous points.
1
In all the post-election hub-bub over the antidemocratic nature of the EC, I have yet to see an article that delves into the problem that we see no matter which party wins: that the overwhelming bulk of money, pandering, and campaigning targets but a small bloc of voters (the "undecideds") in a small handful of states (the "swings"). The vast majority of the electorate are turned into Jimmy Swaggart: we simply "watch."
4
Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “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.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
I think we now have a situation where we have elected a unqualified person to the highest office in the land. Our electoral collage must do it's job.
I think we now have a situation where we have elected a unqualified person to the highest office in the land. Our electoral collage must do it's job.
67
excellent post. sadly as immensely "experienced" as she may be, I don't think HRC is any more qualified. we have sadly been railroaded into having two of the most despicable candidates as I can ever recall...and equally sad, the discourse in this country has become more childish since the time of hamilton....say what you will about the P.E., at least the Gop's primary wasn't as manipulated as was the dnc's...
1
We've known this for awhile, but the graphs are an excellent addition.
This really needs to be rectified because those of us on the coasts are really getting tired of this. I frankly am surprised that CA doesn't go it's own way. I think it could easily create it's own single payer and SS.
This just isn't working anymore.
This really needs to be rectified because those of us on the coasts are really getting tired of this. I frankly am surprised that CA doesn't go it's own way. I think it could easily create it's own single payer and SS.
This just isn't working anymore.
24
If California goes it's on way I would suggest the old Confederacy goes it's own way. If you start letting states make the decision to leave then the US is doomed. I suggest if California attempts to leave the union then the other states, with military force, should send troops and relieve all office holders with that attitude. Then allow the NY carpetbaggers to follow.
The folks in the Red states seem to deeply resent and, yes, h*te, the blue states. There is so much hostility, I'm having a hard time imagining how we are going to get to a place where there is enough shared understanding to have civil, functional self-government. The Red states would have quite a funding shock if the Blue states were to go there own way.
3
ahhh, the old "well take our toys and go" argument...do even realize that any one state, including your beloved california, is as strong as it is because it is attached (politically speaking) to all of the other states? maybe you should give that some real thought...
1
So Donald Trump was right after all: the electoral system was rigged. Only it was rigged against the Democrats, who tend to live in the nation's largest cities. It is time to seriously rethink the Electoral College system.
55
Rigged against the democrats in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc.?
One has to wonder, is the ignorance of US history this "article" displays willful or Ms. Badger's natural state?
6
This is unbelievable. You have informed me so deeply of the flaws of this democracy we are now living through. I kept trying to understand how this could happen and now I do understand as well as where to place my efforts. This is a constitutional crisis in that this lauded document is not protecting one man one vote....its original intention. Let's all become lawyers!
8
so no clue on the electoral college, but seemingly a "constitutional" expert...maybe we should start be re-think public education as it clearly isn't working....
The intention was not one man one vote. Hence, the Republic.
The Framers knew what they were doing.
The Framers knew what they were doing.
1
Great article except for the last paragraph. I'm not sure how that conclusion follows from what precedes it. If anything, dems will continue to lose power as the right now holds more of it than ever and it can be safely assumed that they will use that newfound power to further exaggerate their structural advantage, just as they have done at every opportunity in the past.
8
One vote per person is good enough for all the other democracies. What's wrong with the idea here?
19
It's not the idea we were founded on, that's what.
1
How many of those other democracies have a population of 330 million?
"true" democracies do not exist...and they are dangerous....just think "mob rule"...we live in a republic...
1
At the extreme, each Wyoming resident receives almost 4 times the Electoral College representation of a Californian. (3/0.58 mil= 1 per 195,000 vs. 55/38.8 mil= 1 per 705,000). Why then should Californians pay any more than the one-fourth of the Federal tax rate of Wyoming residents for unequal Congressional and Electoral College representation? Perhaps this year they should not.
If Clinton loses in the Electoral College while trouncing Trump in the popular vote by more than a full percentage point (48.0% vs. 46.7%) and by more than 1,600,000 votes), continuing to pay equal freight for unequal representation is simply foolish. Give every American voter equal weight or tax them accordingly.
If Clinton loses in the Electoral College while trouncing Trump in the popular vote by more than a full percentage point (48.0% vs. 46.7%) and by more than 1,600,000 votes), continuing to pay equal freight for unequal representation is simply foolish. Give every American voter equal weight or tax them accordingly.
39
the system we have exists precisely to force you to pay attention to the minority (politically) without punishing them (i.e. higher taxes/fewer benefits, just because there are fewer of them)...and you need to understand why that is actually a good thing...
1
Being "the greatest country in the history of the earth", as politicians of all stripes like to describe us, is gratifying to the ego, but the moniker implies that to revisit any of our founding principles would be akin to editing the ten commandments. So the second amendment, while being perfectly adapted to the conditions of 1775, was not intended to address the issue of private citizens having possession of automatic weapons. People of very bad intent will be able to get hold of military grade weapons for the indefinite future, all because the founding fathers have been made the equivalent of Old Testament prophets.
The same goes for the Electoral College, which, if abolished, would actually be a spur to voter participation. In Washington, D.C., Republicans effectively don't get to vote for president because they are outnumbered so greatly. If the presidency was determined by popular vote, D.C. Republicans would get a voice, as would Mississippi Democrats.
The Founding Fathers (even I am capitalizing their name, out of reverence I suppose) created something new for their new nation. If we're half as great as we claim to be, why can't we create new constitutional amendments and alterations to old ones to fit contemporary conditions?
danschorr.blogspot.com
The same goes for the Electoral College, which, if abolished, would actually be a spur to voter participation. In Washington, D.C., Republicans effectively don't get to vote for president because they are outnumbered so greatly. If the presidency was determined by popular vote, D.C. Republicans would get a voice, as would Mississippi Democrats.
The Founding Fathers (even I am capitalizing their name, out of reverence I suppose) created something new for their new nation. If we're half as great as we claim to be, why can't we create new constitutional amendments and alterations to old ones to fit contemporary conditions?
danschorr.blogspot.com
26
actually I believe the 2nd ammendment was specifically designed that way...to give citizens access to the same weapons as the government...the 2nd ammendment isn't there for hunting but to provide the ultimate check on an abusive government. that it is misused by criminals...well that's another question as to how to best address that. oh, the founding fathers could have easily specified what kind of weapon the citizenry could have had access to...but they did not, as flint lock rifles were "military" grade weapons of their time...precisely the kinds of weapons the framers wanted the citizens to have access to.
" But in part because the system empowers rural states, for the second time in that span, the candidate who garnered the most votes will not be president."
Oh, darn! How regressive! The "system," (you mean, like the Constitution?) is always messing us up.
I mean, like, we could avoid all this unpleasantness if we just have elections in NYC and LA. I mean, why Not? That's where the peoples is! I mean, cities is happening, and square dancing is, well, kinda backwards.
" Rural voters were able to nudge Donald J. Trump to power despite Hillary Clinton’s steep margins in cities like New York."
You mean, like , all them "rural" voters who put your cars together, and make stuff out of what steel we have left, and the ones who are committing suicide at alarming rates cause there ain't no more coal? Or do you mean the "family farm" which is no longer, except that in my county in upstate NY there are sure quite a few, but are votes don't matter cause they're cancelled out by NYC.
Like God meant it to be!
Damm that rural bias. And the Constitution, too. If it gets in the way of important stuff like transgender bathrooms and safe rooms.
Move over rural people, we are coming through right over you. Cause last time you voted for Barack, and you were cool.
But now you voted for Trump, and you are all mean.
Oh, darn! How regressive! The "system," (you mean, like the Constitution?) is always messing us up.
I mean, like, we could avoid all this unpleasantness if we just have elections in NYC and LA. I mean, why Not? That's where the peoples is! I mean, cities is happening, and square dancing is, well, kinda backwards.
" Rural voters were able to nudge Donald J. Trump to power despite Hillary Clinton’s steep margins in cities like New York."
You mean, like , all them "rural" voters who put your cars together, and make stuff out of what steel we have left, and the ones who are committing suicide at alarming rates cause there ain't no more coal? Or do you mean the "family farm" which is no longer, except that in my county in upstate NY there are sure quite a few, but are votes don't matter cause they're cancelled out by NYC.
Like God meant it to be!
Damm that rural bias. And the Constitution, too. If it gets in the way of important stuff like transgender bathrooms and safe rooms.
Move over rural people, we are coming through right over you. Cause last time you voted for Barack, and you were cool.
But now you voted for Trump, and you are all mean.
13
Histrionics aside, all they're talking about here is one person, one vote. The article explains why were not getting that as a country today. The author in no way disparages rural voters, but merely points out they enjoy greater representation than urban voters under the current system.
15
Don't kid yourself. The Times only has a problem with it because a democrat lost. Otherwise (as is the case when democrats have decided to run charismatic candidates), the Times has no problem with the electoral college.
2
"I'm shocked! shocked! I tell you...to find out that gambling is taking place in this establishment!" very few aspects of our system are a "one person, one vote" true democratic system. if that's all this article is doing, then it should also highlight exactly why that was an important design consideration...it should put it into correct perspective that our current system protects the minority (the minority position, not "minorities"), and one person, one vote could actually lead to mob rule system...not exactly a heartwarming idea...
I'm starting to see the wisdom of Grover Norquist.
1
Since they are taker states...taking more tax revenue than they receive...AND complain about taxes, let's give them only what they contribute. Maybe that will shake them loose from their bubble of propoganda masquerading as news.
34
well at least some of their kin (a la Texas.. and Jargah ) are also in the same shoes as NY, PA, and Illinois. They are also getting ripped off.
Only if your state's takes it's proportional number of welfare recipients. I could live with that.
With all due respect to Jefferson, Madison, and in particular Thomas Paine, we must remember that both Jefferson and Paine were of the opinion that no document written by past generations should govern current or future generations. In Paine's Rights of Man, he states clearly in the first few pages that burning the constitution and writing one anew should not be looked upon as unreasonable when changes in the country occur that would warrant such a move.
14
Why not just admit Trump played the better game?
Blaming voters/or the system/or the founding fathers etc. for Hillary's loss is the ultimate example of a poor loser.
We take our lumps and move on.
Or do we teach our children that failure is ALWAYS the fault of the other guy?
Blaming voters/or the system/or the founding fathers etc. for Hillary's loss is the ultimate example of a poor loser.
We take our lumps and move on.
Or do we teach our children that failure is ALWAYS the fault of the other guy?
16
This article is not a child stomping their feet about Trump winning. This is a problem with our current system that really does need to be looked at. Quote from the article "The challenge for rural voters now is that their electoral strength, and even these funding formulas, have not translated into policies that have fixed the deep economic problems they face, from high unemployment to declining wages." Furthermore, I would suggest that some of the problems of the "inner cities" is that they are not getting a fair funding based on their population. A swamp definitely needs to be drained but based on the numbers, it is the incumbent groups of congressmen who are in all likelihood republicans but that is a moot point.
7
yes that is what he did, "played a game" and we will be the losers. The people who voted for him will have even redder faces than they did in the voting booths once he ruins our country.
1
What about Bush v. Gore? What about 2020? And '24, '28, '32, and all the Congressional elections in between? And the level of rural voters' over representation continues to increase over time. When would the appropriate time to address this mounting issue?
1
It appears the NYT will not post comments unless they are in agreement with their agenda.
8
To the contrary, I see a good mix of comments here. Apparently, many people think that to point out the unequal representation of rural vs. urban Americans is a form of sour grapes. The Times seems very willing to publish numerous comments along these lines, misguided though they be.
I'm trying to imagine where Republicans would stand on this issue if Trump had won by 2 million votes and lost the election.
18
Actually in 92 and again in 96 Clinton won less than 50% popular vote to the combined votes for Perot and Bush (or Perot and Dole in 96). In any other country a plurality would not count as a win and a runoff would have to occur between the top 2 ( in those cases Clinton vs the Republican, as 3rd party Perot would have been out).
I don't recall Republucans complaining or demanding a runoff.
I don't recall Republucans complaining or demanding a runoff.
1
"combined votes for Perot and Bush "...
You're saying a vote for Perot was a vote for Bush. Hummmm, interesting.
You're saying a vote for Perot was a vote for Bush. Hummmm, interesting.
1
They certainly wouldn't huddle in safe spaces in a fetal position and suck their thumbs.
2
Wow! What a basket of sore losers Liberals have become.
The candidates campaigned based on Electoral College.
Mr. Trump has pointed out that he would've spent more time & money in NewYork, Texas, California, etc. and won the popular vote.
Also, there around 180,000 voting precincts in USA.
So a one million vote difference would amount to 5 votes per precincts.
Imagine a nationwide recount--- it would take many months.
The candidates campaigned based on Electoral College.
Mr. Trump has pointed out that he would've spent more time & money in NewYork, Texas, California, etc. and won the popular vote.
Also, there around 180,000 voting precincts in USA.
So a one million vote difference would amount to 5 votes per precincts.
Imagine a nationwide recount--- it would take many months.
9
"Imagine a nationwide recount--- it would take many months."
As was said about Bush v Gore, and we know how well that turned out.
As was said about Bush v Gore, and we know how well that turned out.
1
I think we can drop the urban v. rural language as while not a influence for the framers the appropriate titling should be urban non-white v. rural white. It drives the issues still.
Consider the shaping of opioid drug abuse in rural communities where the prescription heroin use has sky rocketed. We hear of the opioid crisis? What the heck? During the mid 1980's in the time of Reagan crack emerged as a problem, mostly in our cities. The hammer of the legal system(3 strikes/out laws & heavy prison sentences) came down hard. Urban non-whites over filled the prisons. And we were told to 'just say no' .
Now the cry is not opioid crime wave but health crisis.
Rural White privedge even shows up in drug abuse.
Consider the shaping of opioid drug abuse in rural communities where the prescription heroin use has sky rocketed. We hear of the opioid crisis? What the heck? During the mid 1980's in the time of Reagan crack emerged as a problem, mostly in our cities. The hammer of the legal system(3 strikes/out laws & heavy prison sentences) came down hard. Urban non-whites over filled the prisons. And we were told to 'just say no' .
Now the cry is not opioid crime wave but health crisis.
Rural White privedge even shows up in drug abuse.
30
Heroin use has always predominately white -- back before the previous century. Crack was like nothing else when it hit -- you can't compare the two .... you are incorrect in your assumptions.
The first three strike law did not occur until 1993 -- well past Reagan (Clinton).
Crack destroyed the inner city
The first three strike law did not occur until 1993 -- well past Reagan (Clinton).
Crack destroyed the inner city
The large states have overwhelming electoral power by virtue of their population advantage making the outcome of presidential elections essentially a fight between the popular vote/electoral college of the big boys.
As such, complaints about the electoral power "advantage" of rural states are academic.
As such, complaints about the electoral power "advantage" of rural states are academic.
3
It seems that the vast majority of those writing comments bemoaning the "fatal" flaws of the Electoral College system were perfectly happy with it (as was I) when President Obama was elected by it. The grievances being declared here ought to be addressed with policies and candidates who attract more voters across all demographics (including rural vs urban).
The Electoral College comes up for a beating every other election or so to try to explain why one party lost when everybody knows it really should have won. The EC is undoubtedly a difficult issue, but it does solve at least as many problems as it creates.
I'm appalled that Trump is president and i fully expect to find him facing impeachment proceedings before he can complete his term. But it's time now to watch him for those ethical and moral and legal errors so that action can begin against him. Just let him have some time to tie his noose...
The Electoral College comes up for a beating every other election or so to try to explain why one party lost when everybody knows it really should have won. The EC is undoubtedly a difficult issue, but it does solve at least as many problems as it creates.
I'm appalled that Trump is president and i fully expect to find him facing impeachment proceedings before he can complete his term. But it's time now to watch him for those ethical and moral and legal errors so that action can begin against him. Just let him have some time to tie his noose...
5
What are you talking about? President Obama was elected by it? Obama won both electoral and popular votes both times (as usually happens), so there was no issue with respect to his election.
5
Obama win the poular vote as well as the electoral vote.
4
Obama also won the popular vote. I've been against the EC since the first time I voted, when I realized that it really wouldn't matter because my state wasn't a swing state. One person one vote really IS a more democratic system.
6
Credible news is what I believe in, real democracy is what I believe in, what is right is what I believe in; not what is in the Constitution. If that is the case then just change the Constitution. Hint; it will be difficult to do as long as people in the urban areas keep demeaning those who don’t live in urban areas, and in part that is why there is a Constitution.
2
When the Constitution was signed in 1787, the largest state (Pennsylvania) had 8 times the population of the smallest (Delaware) and awarding 2 Senate seats per State was not too great a distortion.
Today the largest state (California) has almost 70 times the population of the smallest (Wyoming) and as every lobbyist knows, the policy of 2 Senate seats per state has resulted in smaller states possessing wildly disproportionate voter impact. This advantage is further amplified by the small-state first primary calendar which leaves voters in larger states as bystanders and enables the rise of extremists.
It’s time to remove the relic of the Electoral College, to distribute Senate seats on a population basis and to schedule primaries on a rolling basis.
Today the largest state (California) has almost 70 times the population of the smallest (Wyoming) and as every lobbyist knows, the policy of 2 Senate seats per state has resulted in smaller states possessing wildly disproportionate voter impact. This advantage is further amplified by the small-state first primary calendar which leaves voters in larger states as bystanders and enables the rise of extremists.
It’s time to remove the relic of the Electoral College, to distribute Senate seats on a population basis and to schedule primaries on a rolling basis.
75
How are you going to distribute Senate seats on a population basis? There are only 100 Senators. If you use population only, some states will have none-heck there will be one Senator for multiple states. Or are you going to guarantee one Senator per state and then distribute what's left by population?
The Electoral College MAY need to be reevaluated but beware unintended consequences. It already reflects population, in part, because electors are distributed based on number of Congressional members, with each state guaranteed at least one. Rural residents and and in less populous states deserve to be heard, not silenced by more populous states. At the same time, urban areas in populous states are underrrepresented in the Senate and farm states wield lots of power, including over farm subsidies because of having two Senators per state.
However, ant change WILL have unintended consequences. It's interesting that the angst over the College in this election is from HRC voters. Suppose she had won the College but not the popular vote. Would her voters be the ones speaking out?
For the record, I voted for HRC and could never have voted for Trump. He pitched his campaign to those who prioritize economic issuex but also to those on the fringe and those who buy into racial and other stereotyping and respond to vile characterizations. BUT the former do not fully overlap with the latter-his supporters are not all racist, and rural voters were not the only ones going for Trump.
The Electoral College MAY need to be reevaluated but beware unintended consequences. It already reflects population, in part, because electors are distributed based on number of Congressional members, with each state guaranteed at least one. Rural residents and and in less populous states deserve to be heard, not silenced by more populous states. At the same time, urban areas in populous states are underrrepresented in the Senate and farm states wield lots of power, including over farm subsidies because of having two Senators per state.
However, ant change WILL have unintended consequences. It's interesting that the angst over the College in this election is from HRC voters. Suppose she had won the College but not the popular vote. Would her voters be the ones speaking out?
For the record, I voted for HRC and could never have voted for Trump. He pitched his campaign to those who prioritize economic issuex but also to those on the fringe and those who buy into racial and other stereotyping and respond to vile characterizations. BUT the former do not fully overlap with the latter-his supporters are not all racist, and rural voters were not the only ones going for Trump.
3
"the policy of 2 Senate seats per state has resulted in smaller states possessing wildly disproportionate voter impact".....
Or, we can take a peek back at our middle school social studies books to find out why there is also a House of Representatives.
Or, we can take a peek back at our middle school social studies books to find out why there is also a House of Representatives.
The chances of the states adopting such a constitutional amendment are nil.
As the beliefs of the Founding Fathers are seen as sacrosanct, there is little hope to correct the balance of "disproportionate slice of power between rural and urban America. There must be a way to remedy this issue in a presidential election - like the requirement of both popular and electoral votes - to avoid the problem we saw in 2000 and last week. Hillary Clinton has won more popular votes than Trump - so far over one million. That Trump is elected casts doubt about his presidential legitimacy, which will come back to haunt the nation as long as he is unfit for the office.
That some 43 percent of eligible voters don't go to the polls is a real shame. But then America's electoral system leaves much to be desired. GOP laws in some states kee people from the polls, especially low-income earners and young people. Trump's aggressive politicking in rural areas has borne fruit. On the whole Republican voters and supporters are more actively engaged than Democrats. This a a lesson that Democrats need to learn. They have to get their act together if they want to break the GOP monopoly of power.
That some 43 percent of eligible voters don't go to the polls is a real shame. But then America's electoral system leaves much to be desired. GOP laws in some states kee people from the polls, especially low-income earners and young people. Trump's aggressive politicking in rural areas has borne fruit. On the whole Republican voters and supporters are more actively engaged than Democrats. This a a lesson that Democrats need to learn. They have to get their act together if they want to break the GOP monopoly of power.
19
GOP laws?
Trumps election is entirely in accordance with law and is therefore legitimate.
Trumps election is entirely in accordance with law and is therefore legitimate.
1
The article ignores the founders' concern about the "tyranny of the majority ", and just in case Democrats can't remember what that means, there should be a constant reminder that at one time the majority of the American electorate favored slavery. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect minority populations from injustice. So, before you advocate "monkeying" with the electoral system consider the reason that the system was created in the first place.
9
But this provision protects only one "minority" -- people who don't live in cities.
Other minorities, such as African-Americans and Hispanics, are not protected by this constitutional device. If you want to make the case that people should be protected from the tyranny of the majority, shouldn't there be protections for other minorities as well, not just "rural" voters?
Other minorities, such as African-Americans and Hispanics, are not protected by this constitutional device. If you want to make the case that people should be protected from the tyranny of the majority, shouldn't there be protections for other minorities as well, not just "rural" voters?
2
Tyranny of the minority is more like it
3
The tyranny is from the minority. These states contribute nothing to the overall well being of the country. Wyoming, Idaho, North Dakota.........please! They are dead space. Places like Iowa have a ridiculous amount of power via primaries. Most people in this country have never been to Iowa, nor do they want to go there. The only thing good about Iowa is that it is the best place to graduate from college if you want to get a Rhodes Scholar and I know this for a fact. Look it up. This is yet another creepy fact about giving rural areas undeserved power.
1
This is all the fault of rural elites!
40
A great comment but Liberals will miss the satire.
1
"Rural Elites"...Hahahaha. Oh wow, that's great. I'll have to share that at the next Ruritan Club fund raising soup supper.
We never knew we were elite. Just like we never knew we were 'deplorable' until Hillary told us. It's amazing what you can learn from the Progressive wing of the New York Times readership.
We never knew we were elite. Just like we never knew we were 'deplorable' until Hillary told us. It's amazing what you can learn from the Progressive wing of the New York Times readership.
1
This is why conservatives make terrible stand-up comedians.
1
The founders were forever trying to be fair. What we got was the electoral college which is tied to population numbers and representation in government. For now, many of the states in the midwest are not as populous as those on the coasts...but with global warming and rising coastal tides......this may not always be the case...let's wait and see what the map looks like at the next census.
7
I'd rather float out to sea than go live in the "heartland."
Really, you think people will want to move to the central part of the country? The ugliest part with the worst weather imaginable. Look at the forecast maps, global warming will hit the south-midwest the most. The temperatures will swelter more than they already do. No one will want to live in hell.
Bon voyage!
1
What taxes do the rural folks pay? Urban tax payers probably more even helping the payouts for subsidies like farm, diary etc. So it seems unreasonable they have the same voting powers as the urban voters. On face of it this may be less than optimal
3
So a person who pays twice as much taxes as you do should get two votes to your one?
1
They pay the same taxes you do but don't get the welfare benefits that urban areas do
1
I can't understand why there hasn't been a legal challenge to the current electoral college process. A "1 person equals 1 vote" standard was established under the 14th Ammendment's equal protection clause. It was upheld in [Reynolds v Sims]. I would argue that the clause amends the electoral college process such that the delegates should be allocated proportionally.
16
Since it's in the Constitution, it would be hard to challenge legally.
If it were a law, you'd have a chance at challenging it.
But if it's in the Constitution, it wouldn't be legal for a court to render a part of the constitution invalid. They certainly wouldn't be able to claim the provision is unconstitutional, since it's right there in the document.
If it were a law, you'd have a chance at challenging it.
But if it's in the Constitution, it wouldn't be legal for a court to render a part of the constitution invalid. They certainly wouldn't be able to claim the provision is unconstitutional, since it's right there in the document.
Knew it was true, just didn't know how true, that is how badly it was out of wack. And we can't change it!! Hillbilly Nation is here to stay. Welcome to the depressing state of the unequal union.
9
"Hillbilly Nation", indeed! I love the smell of liberal condescension toward rural America in the morning. It reminds me of ... arrogance and hubris.
(with apologies to Robert Duval )
(with apologies to Robert Duval )
1
This article is just sophisticated whining by the New York Times because their God Empress lost the election. Let's blame white males. Let's blame free media for Mr. Trump. Let's blame sexism. Let's blame rural America. Editor Dean Baquet who professed public opposition to Mr. Trump has only himself and his newsroom to blame for being so decidedly wrong about Mrs. Clinton ------and why she lost. Oh and by the way she did not lose because of some farm states.
15
But doesn't it seem weird to you *at all* that the person with the most votes did not actually win? Isn't that the point of this article?
Clinton won the popular vote by a lot. If we are being fair, she should be President, whatever any newspaper writes. says
Or, lets just have a discussion about the population and economic demographics of the United States and the effects it might have on national politics and elections.
Rural America certainly lives in a bubble away from how most of the Western world lives and thinks. Their bubble will burst soon. One person=one vote.
27
Lets give Hillary a participation trophy
2
Urban states — that bemoan rural America's disproportionate slice of power in the electoral college — are free at any time to divide into smaller states. Give people their "one vote" if that's what you really want to do.
But critics of the electoral college are really only critics while they temporarily can't get their personalized biased way once every four years.
But critics of the electoral college are really only critics while they temporarily can't get their personalized biased way once every four years.
9
Aside from D.C, there are no "urban states." "Urban states" all have vast spaces of rural territory (still close to half of New Yorkers live outside NYC and LI), and even the most "rural states" have cities. And no, we are not "free at any time to divide into smaller states." If Congress won't take the far simpler step of ending the electoral college to balance votes, why would they allow New York to divide into 20 states the size of Vermont, which would be far more complicated and politically destabilizing? Which is more realistic?
And tell us, how exactly is it wanting one's "personalized biased way" to think that the side which at least 1.7 million more voted for (likely over 3 million once California, Washington, and New York are finished being counted) should have won? How is it wanting one's 'personalized biased way" to find it deeply unjust that some of our voices count 4 times as much as others? (Some states, like Vermont, get 4 times as many electoral votes per person than other states like New York, though there are cities in Vermont and small towns in New York.) How is it wanting one's "personalized biased way" to think there is something wrong with a campaign system that incentivizes candidates to campaign in only the 10-12 most closely contested states, and ignore the other 200 million Americans not living in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, or Virginia?
And tell us, how exactly is it wanting one's "personalized biased way" to think that the side which at least 1.7 million more voted for (likely over 3 million once California, Washington, and New York are finished being counted) should have won? How is it wanting one's 'personalized biased way" to find it deeply unjust that some of our voices count 4 times as much as others? (Some states, like Vermont, get 4 times as many electoral votes per person than other states like New York, though there are cities in Vermont and small towns in New York.) How is it wanting one's "personalized biased way" to think there is something wrong with a campaign system that incentivizes candidates to campaign in only the 10-12 most closely contested states, and ignore the other 200 million Americans not living in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, North Carolina, or Virginia?
2
Not really "free at any time" to become states of their own. it would require approval that may not be granted, especially if Republicans who hold power see this as a way of increasing Democratic political power.
Here's the Constitution's provision on that:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
Here's the Constitution's provision on that:
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
In a nutshell, with its entrenched electoral systems, America has bought the farm and will continue to do so repeatedly.
4
"The reports of our death have been greatly exaggerated." [Apologies to Mark Twain]
1
More than a little disappointed that nowhere in this article is it even mentioned that the state's winner take all allocation of EC votes in presidential elections is the cause of different EC v. pop vote outcome. That has nothing to do with rural v. urban. Want to talk about structural disadvantage, ask a Republican in NY/CA/NJ/Il/CT/MA.
7
You are correct that there are (at least) two issues here. On the one hand, we have the winner take all system of determining who receives the state's electoral votes, so that the state winner of California gets all 55 of California's electoral votes, rather than say, Clinton getting 60 percent of these electoral votes, and Trump getting 30 percent, based on their respective vote shares. On the other hand, there is the issue which is brought up here, that some states receive as many as 1 electoral vote per 143,000 population, while some other states receive as few as 1 electoral vote per 507,000 population. (Arguably we could say there is a 3rd problem in that ME and NE use a slightly better, but still problematic system, in which the winner of the individual district gets the district's electoral vote.) You may be right that, of these problems, the winner take all system is the more impactful in producing popular/electoral splits. I am vehemently against winner-take-all, yet winner-take-all is at least theoretically justifiable as it remains formally fair to all sides. No one gets "extra votes" because they live in a "small state". To give some states 4 times as many electors per person than others is the more egregious flaw in our system because it tells voters that some of them are more equal than others. If a new state drew up a voting system where some of its districts got 4 times the number of votes as others, we would tear it up and tell them to try again.
2
Or a Democrat in Texas, Georgia, sometimes Florida, or any other red state you might think of.
Can't wait for the "Urban Vote's Disproportionate Slice of Power: Access to Income, Health Care, Education, Upward Mobility, Safe Labor, etc., etc., etc."
I'm sure the NYTimes is on it!
I'm sure the NYTimes is on it!
7
Rural voters could have that too if they voted for politicians that would safeguard their health care, benefits, jobs (if not in manufacturing, then in infrastructure, green energy, transportation and education), job safety, etc. And they would vote in office people who understand the necessity of strong labor unions instead of trying to stifle unionization. Which political party has more accomplishments in those areas do you think? Which political party has the most support of unions?
13
Union members in PA, OH, IN, and MI abandoned Hillary in droves
1
The party of stupid flexed it's stupid might. When the dust settles, the stupid will still be unaware why things are so bad, the hardships that they voted upon themselves. The really bad thing is, the Supreme Court decisions will haunt generations of "non-stupid" people.
14
Rural America doesn't have a disproportionate share of power. The problem is that you guys couldn't turn out your urban voters in places like Philly, Detroit, and Milwaukee. When you ignore and/or denigrate the allegedly "privileged" working-class white voters who are struggling, and you also take African American voters for granted, are you really surprised that neither group turned out strongly for your candidate?
Many liberals are so arrogant that they just don't get it. If you're going to continue telling yourself that you're so much smarter than us, and you're content to write us all off as racists instead of understanding why this happened, you had better prepare somebody like Ellison or Holder to run in 2020 so you can run your African American numbers back up to Obama levels. Because Liz Warren carrying Bernie's torch ain't gonna generate the enthusiasm that you guys need to turn out the urban vote. Remember that a major reason why the DNC sabotaged Bernie is because it was widely believed that Hillary would do better with African American voters.
Many liberals are so arrogant that they just don't get it. If you're going to continue telling yourself that you're so much smarter than us, and you're content to write us all off as racists instead of understanding why this happened, you had better prepare somebody like Ellison or Holder to run in 2020 so you can run your African American numbers back up to Obama levels. Because Liz Warren carrying Bernie's torch ain't gonna generate the enthusiasm that you guys need to turn out the urban vote. Remember that a major reason why the DNC sabotaged Bernie is because it was widely believed that Hillary would do better with African American voters.
14
You may be right about this rant, but it doesn't change the facts presented here.
Some states receive far more electoral votes per person than other states. This is discrimination and is unjust. It violates the principle of one person, one vote. All your points above may be correct, but they have no bearing on whether it is unjust to give some people effectively 4 times as many votes for President as others. For example, the state of Wyoming receives 1 electoral vote per 142,000 voters, Vermont receives 1 electoral vote per 165,000 voters, Washington D.C receives 1 electoral vote per 166,000 voters, and North Dakota receives 1 electoral vote per 174,000 voters. By contrast, New York receives one vote per 520,000, Florida 1 per 510,000, California receives 1 per 508,000, and Pennsylvania 1 per 495,000. That means 142,000 Wyoming voters count as much as 508,000 voters in California, 165,000 Vermont voters count as much as 520,000 in New York, 166,000 D.C. voters count as much as 510,000 in Florida, 174,000 North Dakota voters count as much as 495,000 in Pennsylvania. Regardless of the other issues, this should be regarded as unacceptable and outrageous on a bipartisan basis. Why can't democrats and Republicans agree that such a manifestly unjust and unfair system IS manifestly unfair and unjust?
Some states receive far more electoral votes per person than other states. This is discrimination and is unjust. It violates the principle of one person, one vote. All your points above may be correct, but they have no bearing on whether it is unjust to give some people effectively 4 times as many votes for President as others. For example, the state of Wyoming receives 1 electoral vote per 142,000 voters, Vermont receives 1 electoral vote per 165,000 voters, Washington D.C receives 1 electoral vote per 166,000 voters, and North Dakota receives 1 electoral vote per 174,000 voters. By contrast, New York receives one vote per 520,000, Florida 1 per 510,000, California receives 1 per 508,000, and Pennsylvania 1 per 495,000. That means 142,000 Wyoming voters count as much as 508,000 voters in California, 165,000 Vermont voters count as much as 520,000 in New York, 166,000 D.C. voters count as much as 510,000 in Florida, 174,000 North Dakota voters count as much as 495,000 in Pennsylvania. Regardless of the other issues, this should be regarded as unacceptable and outrageous on a bipartisan basis. Why can't democrats and Republicans agree that such a manifestly unjust and unfair system IS manifestly unfair and unjust?
2
Anyone know a good voodoo doctor? Maybe we can bring Huey Long back to life and save the Democratic Party.
2
It's interesting how we export "Democracy" around the globe, heck even enforce it through our intelligence agencies, but fail to apply Democracy here at home.
13
How is it ok that the will of the majority of voters are ignored? I sit here as a democrat seeing the right wingers take over the government. This is especially troubling when the pick to head the justice department. Is it true that the democratic house of representatives got millions more vote than the republicans?
6
i agree and as to your moniker...1970 i explored a vacant abandoned Bernard McFadden Health resort; that was established around the time of the Civil War?. Even the daily menu of health foods including Yogurt were on display. On the roof were enclosed glass houses (with chairs) on large spindles that were turned as the sun rose and set. Quite an extraordinary place and man.
Maybe take a civics class? We used to do that in this country
1
For an explanation of why this trend may actually recede over the next few decades, see my comparative article on projected demographics and housing changes in the United States and Japan published last year in HUD's Cityscape Journal: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2704683
1
Put in simpler and more direct terms, the so-called 'Silent Majority' is neither 'silent' nor a 'majority.' It is merely the loudest voice in the room. And as a result, a mythical way of life that is far behind us now dictates the future for a majority who never lived and do not want to live the myth.
5
Just what the country needs: a new area of polarization -- as if there aren't enough already. I thought the NYT confessed after the election to bad behavior. But it was confession without remorse -- and this is the result: unable to stop from making things worse. O tempora mores.
11
The right wing is getting a lot of mileage out of the fake news that the NYT confessed to bad behavior or apologized (another popular fake-news meme).
Go to the source. Read the letter. You'll see it's neither an apology nor a confession of bad behavior.
https://twitter.com/melbournecoal/status/797171598163898368/photo/1?ref_...
Go to the source. Read the letter. You'll see it's neither an apology nor a confession of bad behavior.
https://twitter.com/melbournecoal/status/797171598163898368/photo/1?ref_...
The left always complains and wants to change the rules when they lose. I suggest they visit Walmart, buy some play-doh and retreat to one of their safe places. It seems to be working for the snowflakes.
10
Snowflakes cry and demand a safe place when some people at a play criticize them. Snowflakes feel hurt when they are called rubes by somebody. Snowflakes pass voter suppression laws when they know they would lose otherwise.
2
No...we won the popular vote which Republicans refuse to see and include.
1
Look, the Electoral College STILL can overrule the result of the Election. If there was ever a time that fit how the founders wanted to protect the Republic from peril, it is now!
God help us!
God help us!
12
Rise up, America. Don't accept the EC as a fair representative of the people's voice. Resist a Trump administration through all peaceful means necessary. Remember- we come in greater number than Trump and his supporters!
1
riffing off the mentioned divide of the Dakota territory in order boost Senate representation, can California return the favor and split itself into three states, northern, southern, and coastal, and pick up four additional Senate seats?
2
At least one and maybe two of those states would be relatively rural and Republican dominated. The nation's concentration of urban voters is mirrored within California.
I mean, its pretty obvious that the electoral college is a joke that decreases voter turnout and acts undemocratically.
However, this whole article implies that all rural voters are Trump voters. Look, Im transgender woman living in a rural Colorado county. My whole county has 6,000 people in it. Im not like my friends who only feel safe and good in the city. I think cities are disgusting, and I dont see how urban people can stand living in concrete cages paying $4,000 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment they dont own. If I want to go to a concert or see art, Ill drive 80 miles into Denver. It only takes an hour on the amazing empty roads that the federal government built for us all, they are not just useful for interstate commerce you know.
Then, Ill go home to the 2 acres of land and 3,000 square foot house that I pay $750 a month for. Ill drink the crystal clear non-leaded water from my personal well, and Ill take a dip in my hottub I bought with the money I saved on my mortgage. Im also a millenial who owns their own house, that doesnt even exist in the cities.
I voted for Jill Stein and went to MIT. Instead of trying to change the constitution, maybe urban millenials living with their parents should move to the country. We need as many minorities and queers (its lonely!) and wierd people as we can get. Instead of destroying 240 years of American history, where the constitution survived a civil war no less, maybe city liberals should change rural minds from within.
However, this whole article implies that all rural voters are Trump voters. Look, Im transgender woman living in a rural Colorado county. My whole county has 6,000 people in it. Im not like my friends who only feel safe and good in the city. I think cities are disgusting, and I dont see how urban people can stand living in concrete cages paying $4,000 a month for a 1 bedroom apartment they dont own. If I want to go to a concert or see art, Ill drive 80 miles into Denver. It only takes an hour on the amazing empty roads that the federal government built for us all, they are not just useful for interstate commerce you know.
Then, Ill go home to the 2 acres of land and 3,000 square foot house that I pay $750 a month for. Ill drink the crystal clear non-leaded water from my personal well, and Ill take a dip in my hottub I bought with the money I saved on my mortgage. Im also a millenial who owns their own house, that doesnt even exist in the cities.
I voted for Jill Stein and went to MIT. Instead of trying to change the constitution, maybe urban millenials living with their parents should move to the country. We need as many minorities and queers (its lonely!) and wierd people as we can get. Instead of destroying 240 years of American history, where the constitution survived a civil war no less, maybe city liberals should change rural minds from within.
8
Shouldn't the lesson of this election be that the Democratic Party has gotten too deep into the NY-DC-LA bubble?
14
There is a very bitter irony in the photo that was chosen to accompany the article - it is in fact a photo of the census being taken at the STANDING ROCK agency in the Dakotas. THIS photo captures the governments continued assault on Native/First American rights - by gathering them up and counting THEM...and then determing what is best for them. That photo captures what is the real and ongoing disproportionate slice of power.
2
the rural citizens have claimed a high moral ground, that they just lost forever. They voted for the guy without qualifications, who blatantly lied, while pretending that the qualified woman wasn't to be trusted. they have lost the respect of their hard working less rural fellow-Americans.
14
You picked the only candidate who couldn't beat Trump, great choice. Better luck next time
1
It makes great sense to trust America's future to those who have never left the country, have studied little, have the same life experience over over and over, have no curiosity, are prone to believing Gods and Pharisees, and are angry at anything different. Yeah, that makes great sense, all that common sense!!
6
Wow way to judge a huge group of people with a broad brush. Im a rural voter who voted for Jill Stein, and Id say Im about as opposite of what you said as its possible to be.
Judge not, lest ye be judged. I dont even believe in God, but he does have a point.
Judge not, lest ye be judged. I dont even believe in God, but he does have a point.
1
Oh quit whining. Democrats ONLY whine about the 229 year system when they lose.
(1) The electoral college votes = the total number of Senators & Congressmen + 3 for DC
(2) The US Senate was NEVER designed to allocate the number of Senators based upon the populations of different states. It structured to equally represent the interest of each state (an independent political unit) no matter how many people lived in each state.
In 1790, the total population was 3,929,214 & there 13 states that had ratified the Constitution
Delaware had 59,096 people and 2 Senators. Virginia (the largest) had 747,610 people and 2 Senators
(2) House members per state are proportioned by population. 1 House member to xxx number of people.
(3) A state's electoral votes are (a) same number as it has in the House & (b) +2 for its Senators.
Slavery had zero to do with it
Wanna make the Electoral College equalized with each elector for XXX people?
Then you get rid of the +2 which represents the Senators.
That would mean Wyoming or Vermont gets 1 vote, not 3 & California gets 53, not 55
Here is the bad news. Trump would STILL have won. Clinton won 17 2/3 states + DC & Trump 32 1/3 states.
The study that showed nearly 60% of college grads under 65 had little or no knowledge of history or US government is true! Less than 1/3 of grads 25-34 know how the Constitution is amended but 76%+ of those over-65 know
https://www.goacta.org/images/download/A_Crisis_in_Civic_Education.pdf
(1) The electoral college votes = the total number of Senators & Congressmen + 3 for DC
(2) The US Senate was NEVER designed to allocate the number of Senators based upon the populations of different states. It structured to equally represent the interest of each state (an independent political unit) no matter how many people lived in each state.
In 1790, the total population was 3,929,214 & there 13 states that had ratified the Constitution
Delaware had 59,096 people and 2 Senators. Virginia (the largest) had 747,610 people and 2 Senators
(2) House members per state are proportioned by population. 1 House member to xxx number of people.
(3) A state's electoral votes are (a) same number as it has in the House & (b) +2 for its Senators.
Slavery had zero to do with it
Wanna make the Electoral College equalized with each elector for XXX people?
Then you get rid of the +2 which represents the Senators.
That would mean Wyoming or Vermont gets 1 vote, not 3 & California gets 53, not 55
Here is the bad news. Trump would STILL have won. Clinton won 17 2/3 states + DC & Trump 32 1/3 states.
The study that showed nearly 60% of college grads under 65 had little or no knowledge of history or US government is true! Less than 1/3 of grads 25-34 know how the Constitution is amended but 76%+ of those over-65 know
https://www.goacta.org/images/download/A_Crisis_in_Civic_Education.pdf
10
Sarah Palin actually cancelled the bridge to nowhere. The one thing she did right lol
2
What's needed is for some rich progressive to start investing in Wyoming, Montana, ... (build some cities and populate them with current urban dwellers). 100,000 new voters in Wyoming will do wonders to increase democracy.
1
I wouldn't expect thanks from the current citizens of Wyoming and Montana.
1
Doesnt it say there that it cannot be amended before 1808? Its hard to read, but Im pretty sure I got it right. Old American legalize is easier to comprehend that todays legalize, but not by much.
1
Next article in the series: how rural states are disproportionately represented in our armed forces. Solution: an Israel-like automatic draft of all young people upon graduation from high school, from both the rural and the urban, the children of both the now feared uneducated white folks and the children of our brilliant progressive elite. Now that would be one way to ensure the survival of our constitutional republic, and cure the elites of their silliness.
8
The unfortunate reality is that the military is one of very few job opportunities for young people from rural areas. Would support a move to institute mandatory government service for all young people in a variety of vocations...teaching, child care, health care, infrastructure maintenance, etc., and including service the military. I believe that it would be beneficial for all to have skin in the game, meet people from circumstances other than your own, and acquire job and people skills while in service.
1
You act as if the electoral college was established twenty years ago with the intent of keeping republicans in power. Get over it and move forward. Perhaps If the democratic candidate wasn't arrogant, didn't look down upon small town America and the people that live there, and wasn't a crook, she would have been elected
12
Uhmmm, she's not arrogant, she doesn't look down on small town America (in fact she knows it well having started her career in Arkansas) and she isn't a crook, as decades of her tax returns show. Now how about Trump's tax returns? And "getting over it" means moving backward, not forward.
1
Did you just miss Trump agreeing to pay 25,000,000 for fraud? How? Why? Because it's inconvenient? Because you cheer his fraud?
2
It's time for a northern secession. Blue areas are where America's knowledge and wealth are created. There is no reason to share it with a bunch of ungrateful pin headed rubes, who repay us by trying to force their obsolete values down our throats. with a few border modifications the northeast, west coast and other blue states can secede, join Canada, with which we have much more in common today than we have with the rural rednecks.
12
Omg really? Break up America because we got Trump and you dont like leaving your big city? We survived one civil war already.
History is bound to repeat itself I guess. Lets segregate ourselves is the answer of the "enlightened" city slicker.
At least it makes me laugh. Succession!
History is bound to repeat itself I guess. Lets segregate ourselves is the answer of the "enlightened" city slicker.
At least it makes me laugh. Succession!
1
In New York State, of course, there is no rural bias as regards state offices: The majority of votes in state elections in the upstate New York counties can be Republican, but the Democrat votes of New York City determine the election. Look at the last gubernatorial election in New York. In this state, New York City rules--regardless of the sentiments of upstate--rural and urban.
9
Not everyone upstate is a Republican. The Senate is Republican and the Republicans in the Assembly have enough representation to prevent a veto-proof supermajority. It's called compromise, that's all.
And New Yorkers elected Anthony Weiner to Congress, shows how smart they are
2
It is understood that the Senate and the Electoral College give inordinate power to small population states as part of a Constitutional compromise and, in the case of the College, to have a clear winner in a Presidential election. Also undemocratic is the gerrymandering that weighs election results in favor of the privileged and against the non-white voter/citizen. One thing Trump was right about: elections are rigged.
11
That's not exactly correct ... there are many districts that are designed to be minority controlled ... this further bifurcates the electorate and protects incumbents. We end up with majority white and majority black districts by design ... it's not progress.
It is wrong for the NYT to say that the provision giving each state two Senators cannot be amended. It can be amended. However such an amendment would require approval by the states giving up a Senator, thus making it effectively impossible. But it can be amended. Per the Constitution: "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
2
The system is designed to present the tyranny of the majority (urban state population) over the minority (rural state population), which is very American value. One would think that the left would support this.
Or do they only support American values if it means they win?
Or do they only support American values if it means they win?
10
The left would appreciate it if their vote counted as much as anyone else's.
1
I am sympathetic to the representation argument but it doesn't explain Clinton's loss.
She lost large states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida with big urban centers. Her loss was not because of Wyoming and North Dakota.
She lost large states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and Florida with big urban centers. Her loss was not because of Wyoming and North Dakota.
11
She didn't lose the urban centers in those states.
1
She lost those states by razor thin margins.
1
What difference does a razor thin margin matter?
1
It's not the structure it's the fact that the House has not been expanded in almost 100 years.
2
Thank you for pointing this out. The 1929 apportionment act capped the suze if the Hiuse at 438. Before that the number if representatives grew with the polulation.
Or in summary, "who really cares about those people anyway?"
The author needs a lecture from the cast of Hamilton on being concerned about ALL Americans.
The author needs a lecture from the cast of Hamilton on being concerned about ALL Americans.
11
Did Hillary and her team not understand the Constitution and its well-known electoral rules BEFORE the election? The Electoral College system exists precisely to assure that the Presidential election does not become simply a popularity contest which would encourage candidates to spend most of their time and money in the nation's largest population centers, and write off even more than they do now, the people who live in "flyover country".
More likely, Team Hillary knew the rules full well, but chose to ignore their power, to their cost. If Democrats want to whine, perhaps they should whine about why their candidate gave them so little "boots on the ground time" to the States of rural America. Had she done so, I suspect that all voters would have noticed that she was making a demonstrable commitment to ALL the people of these 50 States, not just the strategically favored few.
More likely, Team Hillary knew the rules full well, but chose to ignore their power, to their cost. If Democrats want to whine, perhaps they should whine about why their candidate gave them so little "boots on the ground time" to the States of rural America. Had she done so, I suspect that all voters would have noticed that she was making a demonstrable commitment to ALL the people of these 50 States, not just the strategically favored few.
11
I don't buy for a second that Trumps victory was fueled a non racist wave of the poor and downtrodden. If you voted for this you voted for all of it and it was plain as day where Trump was coming from. You own it for the same reason that Bannon and David Duke own it.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/there_i...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/there_i...
15
Its time for Northeast states Exit. NEXIT. Lets see how the Red States fare with their second world economies, third world educational attainment and stone age moral values. I would rather live in an American Scandinavia, and partner with my like minded friends in California Republic.
41
and this is the very type of rhetoric that gave rise to Trump.....If you look at the election map - most of NY state and Pennsylvania were in fact red. Racism and prejudice knows no geographic boundries.
2
Yes, but please, let's do it on the county level.
Sorry Rufus, what will sweet little TN do if it doesn't get back $1.45 for every $1 it pays in? And remember it was the great Democratic godfather FDR, a New Yorker, who brought y'all electricity....
3
One of the more ignorant articles by the NYT in an election year where the paper has been, and continues to be, full of them. The rules around the electoral college and the Senate protected less populous against a tyranny of the majority, and they were accepted by everyone of the original 13 states, plus each of the 37 that followed. If Badger and any other whiner does not like the rules, they have two choices. They can push to get the appropriate number of states, in accordance with the constitution, to approve changes. Or, they can leave, and go to a country more to their liking.
The idea that every other country elects their prime minister or chancellor in a popularity contest is nonsense. Look at Canada, England, and Germany for example. Although the rules vary somewhat from country to country, essentially the leader is chosen by the winners of the legislative seats in an election.
The idea that every other country elects their prime minister or chancellor in a popularity contest is nonsense. Look at Canada, England, and Germany for example. Although the rules vary somewhat from country to country, essentially the leader is chosen by the winners of the legislative seats in an election.
9
I see nothing "ignorant" about the article. It is informative.
People vote in our country believing that their vote counts as much as anyone else's vote. This does not make electing someone a "popularity" contest, as you say.
For every other voting activity I engage in, at the local and state level, my vote counts the same as every other person who votes. But not for the most important vote that I cast?
So what if the original "intent" was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority?" Isn't what we have now a "tyranny" of less populated states?
People vote in our country believing that their vote counts as much as anyone else's vote. This does not make electing someone a "popularity" contest, as you say.
For every other voting activity I engage in, at the local and state level, my vote counts the same as every other person who votes. But not for the most important vote that I cast?
So what if the original "intent" was to prevent a "tyranny of the majority?" Isn't what we have now a "tyranny" of less populated states?
The next time I hear anyone say that "the American people have spoken", I will remind them that Trump does not speak for me, and also remind them that Hillary won 1.5 million more votes than him.
This entire election was a travesty, and I am including the Democrats in the mix.
God Save the Queen!
This entire election was a travesty, and I am including the Democrats in the mix.
God Save the Queen!
4
A brilliant description of the underlying situation. For decades, the Republican Party has consciously pursued the rural voter for two main reasons: 1) their media markets are cheaper, and 2) they have far more power in our system than they should have. Where there were once northeastern urban liberal Republicans, there are now only rural Republicans.
The Republican Party is a MINORITY party, but it has leveraged itself into power by milking the inequities in our 'rigged' electoral system. So one million Americans in Alaska and Wyoming have FOUR senators, while 36 million Americans in California have only TWO.
When my non-American friends ask WHAT on earth is wrong with America, I try to explain our rigged system. Their reaction is the same as my own: our system is not democratic (And please spare me the replies that this is not a democracy but a republic ... a representative republic is type of democratic system. Our own system is rigged.)
The Republican Party is a MINORITY party, but it has leveraged itself into power by milking the inequities in our 'rigged' electoral system. So one million Americans in Alaska and Wyoming have FOUR senators, while 36 million Americans in California have only TWO.
When my non-American friends ask WHAT on earth is wrong with America, I try to explain our rigged system. Their reaction is the same as my own: our system is not democratic (And please spare me the replies that this is not a democracy but a republic ... a representative republic is type of democratic system. Our own system is rigged.)
64
Wait, I'm confused. I thought The Donald (excuse me - I meant to say President-elect Trump) said the election was rigged. Oh right, that was only if he lost. Since it is apparently structurally rigged against the majority it turns out that it is only rigged if those that it is rigged for lose. Right?
1
Yeah it is. To prevent the majority from being able to trod upon the minority. Why does everyone think Athenian Democracy is the best way to go? Dont they think the framers of the constitution didnt know about Athens. and chose to learn from the mistakes they made?
Maybe tax cuts are the answer. The blue states subsidize the red states with tax dollars. Cutting taxes hurts more red states than blue states. Blue states can keep their money in their states and greatly improve their way of life.
Alternatively, without amending the Constitution, we can repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which set the House of Representatives at 435.
Alternatively, without amending the Constitution, we can repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929 which set the House of Representatives at 435.
3
You'll need a Democratic majority in both houses to achieve what you are hoping for.
2
(Not Mark) I think you should look into that idea again. I've seen it debunked, but I can't find the articles.
Nobody has heard trump mention the rigged system since election day. He was absolutely right and knew that rigged system just might throw things his way. If it hadn't, he would still be whining and threatening lawsuits. Instead, he's moving ahead to remake the presidency in his avaricious, cynical image.
9
Trump was right.
Bottom line is that the election and government is rigged at it's foundations, just not the way he thought.
This is really depressing!
Bottom line is that the election and government is rigged at it's foundations, just not the way he thought.
This is really depressing!
1
If you want to change the electoral college system, do it. All it takes is a Constitutional Amendment.
6
That was all the ERA took too.
People who profit from cheating are not going to outlaw cheating. Immutability doesn't make it fair.
People who profit from cheating are not going to outlaw cheating. Immutability doesn't make it fair.
Wall Street pour millions into sparely populated states like North Dakota to buy Senators, because it's cheaper and easier to buy a rural state Senator than a populous state Senator with lots of big media markets. Each Senator is worth one vote.
Most of the Democratic Senators out West (when there are any) are usually paid off Wall Street stooges -- and almost always the ones driving the Wall Street and heath care compromises. These Wall Street DINOS masquerading as Democrats cost us the Public Option among other things.
Most of the Democratic Senators out West (when there are any) are usually paid off Wall Street stooges -- and almost always the ones driving the Wall Street and heath care compromises. These Wall Street DINOS masquerading as Democrats cost us the Public Option among other things.
1
With apologies to "Variety" for a long ago headline and a bit of updating, all I can say is "Stix Hix Nix Future".
1
Apparently, "forgotten by the Elites" is Rural White code for "No Black or Hispanic is allowed to have a better life than I have". I will never take the Working Class Hero seriously again. They asked for Trump and they are going to get four years or more of Trump. I hope it goes down like rusty nails.
9
(Not Mark) You do know that Trump won with African-American, Hispanic and college-educated whites too, don't you? Look it up. I'm not a Trump supporter, but would never have voted for HRC. If the dems want to win they are going to have to stop demonizing a group of people just because of their skin color. I'm Jewish and it's starting to make me nervous and it's not because of Trump. When you go after one group it gets easier to go after another. You all need to stop whining and look at yourselves.
There's a really easy fix for this, you know. Just pave everything over between the two coasts. It creates jobs, provides more parking, and then the cows won't have to get all muddy. That will make milking them much neater. And then they can live in condos rather than barns. If that's the case, maybe then the cows can vote too. A sound way to reinsert sanity back into the whole process.
1
And Democracy, the American one, was to be exported to the Middle East and guess what happened? An illegal war, thousands upon thousands of deaths and no Justice for the criminals who initiated it. Thank you Republicans and they are about to do it once again. In Novembre 2016, more votes for the Democrat than for the Grifter but the Groper gets to rule. America, a crooked nation that preaches Democracy. Must have learned that at Trump university.
10
In Minnesota more than 2.8 million votes were cast in the past presidential election. We have 10 electoral votes. North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska had just over 3 million votes cast...yet they have 20 electoral votes. Essentially a vote in those states is worth twice as much as a vote here. In North Dakota there is an electoral vote for every 110,000 votes. In Minnesota, one for every 280,000.
14
Such crybabies.
I mean really.
Now you want to change the rules and bash rural citizens whom you arrogantly deem to be inferior to yourselves.
Hillary knew the rules going in and she foolishly chose not to visit Wisconsin even once. And she lost all of Wisconsin's electoral votes. And you think she's smart?
But keep it up and continue to expose yourselves as the immature, intolerant, and anything-but-liberal people you really are. You will continue to lose House seats, Senate seats, Governorships, state seats, etc as you have in record numbers since Obama took office.
This country, THANK GOD, is moving on without you.
I mean really.
Now you want to change the rules and bash rural citizens whom you arrogantly deem to be inferior to yourselves.
Hillary knew the rules going in and she foolishly chose not to visit Wisconsin even once. And she lost all of Wisconsin's electoral votes. And you think she's smart?
But keep it up and continue to expose yourselves as the immature, intolerant, and anything-but-liberal people you really are. You will continue to lose House seats, Senate seats, Governorships, state seats, etc as you have in record numbers since Obama took office.
This country, THANK GOD, is moving on without you.
13
Nope, we just want our fair share.
And we want to stop disproportionately subsidizing parasites.
And we want to stop disproportionately subsidizing parasites.
1
Which is why California is the economic engine of the country.
1
The electoral system has been around for eons, and yet it is only now when the cry babies' candidate has rightfully and legally lost this election that they have suddenly decided that it is an outrage! And what seems to incense them the most is that "rural" people have had an influence. I am a New Yorker, but I have lived in many places, including Rural America, and I will stand up for rural people any day over the entitled, clueless bubble people of New York. Denial is not just the longest river in Africa.....
2
Vast difference between "sour grapes" and "righteous indignation."
8
To answer the comment from Vermont about " 10 Californias " , 20 years ago there was a proposal floated about creating three California's ( Northern, Central, Southern ) , maybe that will be revisited. Originally, California was going to be 2 states but the North passed on it in 1850 as Southern California would have been a Slave State.
3
We democrats need to relocate to these rural republican states. Buy a cottage, a shack, just buy a closet. Leave your second home in New York, California, or Connecticut.
Vote by mail.
This might just return the US to the one-person, one-vote rule.
Vote by mail.
This might just return the US to the one-person, one-vote rule.
5
We had our version of the alt-right in Canada for ten years with Stephen Harper. He did everything he could do to destroy the fabric of our country; its democratic systems and balances, its belief in fairness and equality, and our moral values. It went on day after day for ten years and every day we felt that it could not get worse, but it did. You will be amazed what Trump and his followers will come up with. They will attack everything you hold dear and debilitate your country, morally, economically, and institutionally. It will be war. Of that you can be assured. Get ready.
11
I love Canada. I am a McGill graduate. My heart ached for 10 years as I watched what Harper was doing to one of the best countries on this planet.
Liberal Party leadership floundered and let him have his way with them. Rural (i.e. Western) Canada wielded far more power than it was entitled to. Now it's our turn.
You are now back on track. As the economist noted in a cover story a few weeks ago, the torch has been passed to Canada to stand as a beacon of liberal, democratic values.
Liberal Party leadership floundered and let him have his way with them. Rural (i.e. Western) Canada wielded far more power than it was entitled to. Now it's our turn.
You are now back on track. As the economist noted in a cover story a few weeks ago, the torch has been passed to Canada to stand as a beacon of liberal, democratic values.
1
Why not get rid of the Senate while you're doing the arithmetic? The two-party system would be another excellent discard. Or just skip the computations and make a straight line to a unicameral parliament.
What people are proposing for this bias will make the situation worse. States in Middle AMerica do NOT want to be dictated to or rules by California and New York. This is what is boils down to.
I was so happy to retire when I could move again to a rural area where I can see farms, cows, horses, goats, chickens and go to a store where English is spoken and not have to see some one in a hijab that can't speak English. If you like that welcome to it. But I like and believe in rural American and think that is is right that we preserve the electoral college as it is.
Do you really think it is right that just because narrow strips of land along the I-95 corridor should rule America because it is overcrowded? I would rather see the US split into 2 countries than be ruled by the loony-tunes in California and New York.
I was so happy to retire when I could move again to a rural area where I can see farms, cows, horses, goats, chickens and go to a store where English is spoken and not have to see some one in a hijab that can't speak English. If you like that welcome to it. But I like and believe in rural American and think that is is right that we preserve the electoral college as it is.
Do you really think it is right that just because narrow strips of land along the I-95 corridor should rule America because it is overcrowded? I would rather see the US split into 2 countries than be ruled by the loony-tunes in California and New York.
6
The preamble says we the PEOPLE.
Not we the few people and their cows and chickens.
Not we the few people and their cows and chickens.
2
Californians and New Yorkers don't want to be ruled by loony-tunes in rural America who are dependent on Californian and New York tax dollars, but who show no gratitude for it...
4
Why is it ok to refuse to be 'ruled and dictated' by the coastal voters and not ok to not want to be 'ruled and dictated' by the middle voters, as you suggest? Wouldn't it be better to look for compromise anyway?
2
Ummm, the reason rural voters voted for Trump is because the Democratic Party abandoned it's working/middle class people to engorge itself on donations from Wall Street and Silicon Valley. These are your people and the lack of compassion you have for the decimation of their lives is one of the great embarrassments of the Democratic Party. I will remind you they use to vote solidly democratic until they were sold down the river by people like Bill Clinton in their lust for money and power.
6
I strongly disagree with you. The rural voters refuse to hold any of their representatives responsible for whatever it is that makes them feel abandoned. These states routinely send obstructionists or social conservatives or deficit hawks to DC. Then, vote for it again for the WH.
You own this mess.
You own this mess.
1
People a lot smarter than the author came up with the electoral college. As long as cities need, food, water, fuel, etc. we better keep the electoral college in place to protect us from the white liberal elites.
5
Tribal rural voters have invaded the election with absurd Beitbart racist stories, bad click bait false news and Faux Fox. Time for them to go. Here's how and it has been done before with great success. Their heads explode when they hear country music sung by Slim Whitman. "Indian Love Call" works really well. Drive around rural areas blaring the song out of loud speakers. Spontaneous combustion. DONE! And a big shout out to Mars Attacks
3
And the "rural population" is basically uneducated and ignorant.
2
And the "urban population" ois basically weak and arrogant.
2
Ouch you two. Rural people are not all the same, and city people arent the same. Im a polyamorous transgender marijuana consultant Stein voter who lives in a county with 6,000 people. We dont have to be so divided here.
1
Agreed, Wilson, we are weak and arrogant - I'm a 185 lbs. weakling with a college degree and have traveled the world to see what it's made. But I'll take weak and arrogant over uneducated and ignorant because the former are the ones who get things done (inventing, creating, discovering new ways) while the latter take subsidies, go to church and tell us we're damned for wanting a woman to make her own health choices, for wishing to help all in need, for trying to make America free of gun violence, and all other arrogant concerns, etc.
40 years ago I spent 4 years of my life, excluding summers, in a small rural town of Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania. It was there that I attended Susquehanna University. There was no love lost between the students of the college and the townspeople. We contemptuously referred to them as townies and they viewed us as the spoiled brats of liberals. Many times there were ugly words exchanged and sometimes fights ensued. Two of my friends on campus came from rural areas in Virginia and North Carolina. They commented how similar these towns people were in attitude to their own neighbors. It was years later that Carvelle's comment about Pennsylvania being Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between had so much resonance for me. The other day I checked out how Synder county, to which Selinsgrove belonged, voted. 82% for Trump. I have changed dramatically since those days. My education opened me up. Towns like Selinsgrove will always be stuck in the 50s and that is where they will always seek to pull us back to.
10
"Towns like Selinsgrove will always be stuck in the 50s and that is where they will always seek to pull us back to."
You haven't been paying much attention to the discussion on wealth concentration an federal income tax rates.
You haven't been paying much attention to the discussion on wealth concentration an federal income tax rates.
And why were things set up that way? The cities were the portals for immigrants. One way to deny them power. (Blacks were already denied power through slavery.) The more things change, the more they stay the same.
9
Thanks, Emily. I can actually tell by reading this article that I'm reading the NYT and not HuffPo. Which is unusual around here lately.
I voted for Clinton. My vote does not count the same as does that of a voter in South Dakota.
Yet I am supposed to think that Trump is MY President? No way.
I want an equal vote.
Yet I am supposed to think that Trump is MY President? No way.
I want an equal vote.
14
HAHA-har!
The "Potent Republican advasntage" baked into the system was, before 1968 a potent Democratic advantage. I remember those days well when it was assumed like Sunday followed Saturday, and m onday came after, that the Democrats would ALWAYS hold a majority of rural and , especially southern former Confederate states! FDR, as a result of the Great Depression made of the party, q mighty co-alition to push through as much of the new socila legislation which both Democrats and Republican voterrs now depend upon. (LBJ contributed the rest-meidcaid-medicare, and the voting rights act, even as he fought a war in Vietnam)
All of the characteridtics which so many Western Middle American , rural and White Americans want "back", to make us Great Again were put there and made fast by Democrats, in the decades before Nixon.
This election might have gone to a Democrat had the candidate been The Vice President . The story is that Mrs CLinton and Barack Obama had a deal-"I will support you next time"-regardless of the Vice,-in 2016.
Hence, we had a woman take the candidacy in spite of her extremely poor showing among voters in terms of likability and trust.
Many Democratic voters committed political suicide- voting 3rd party, or staying home, because so much of our famous media predicted her victory by landslide. Democrats have cut their own throats and, have, in fact, canoodled with the enemy , on wall street and elsewhere, selling us all down the river like it was 1845.
The "Potent Republican advasntage" baked into the system was, before 1968 a potent Democratic advantage. I remember those days well when it was assumed like Sunday followed Saturday, and m onday came after, that the Democrats would ALWAYS hold a majority of rural and , especially southern former Confederate states! FDR, as a result of the Great Depression made of the party, q mighty co-alition to push through as much of the new socila legislation which both Democrats and Republican voterrs now depend upon. (LBJ contributed the rest-meidcaid-medicare, and the voting rights act, even as he fought a war in Vietnam)
All of the characteridtics which so many Western Middle American , rural and White Americans want "back", to make us Great Again were put there and made fast by Democrats, in the decades before Nixon.
This election might have gone to a Democrat had the candidate been The Vice President . The story is that Mrs CLinton and Barack Obama had a deal-"I will support you next time"-regardless of the Vice,-in 2016.
Hence, we had a woman take the candidacy in spite of her extremely poor showing among voters in terms of likability and trust.
Many Democratic voters committed political suicide- voting 3rd party, or staying home, because so much of our famous media predicted her victory by landslide. Democrats have cut their own throats and, have, in fact, canoodled with the enemy , on wall street and elsewhere, selling us all down the river like it was 1845.
2
So in effect -one person, one vote- is as bogus as Trump U.
The electoral college is as outdated as flintlock rifles.
The electoral college is as outdated as flintlock rifles.
1
This would be so much more credible if you or any other "progressive" had cared about the issue before November 9, 2016.
4
The Electoral College is the enemy of democracy and has worsened the political polarization in this country. Candidates spend all their time campaigning in a few swing states. Minority party voters might as well not bother coming out.
3
Hasn't done them any good. Having power without income is useless power.
1
High time to get rid of the electoral college and get back to one person one vote. Make it equitable for everyone.
1
Fat chance.
Go,"back" to it? It has never existed in the US for presidential elections, and it does not exist in several other western countries either ( eg Germany, Canada, England).
1
Let me count the ways--in which the NYT has sought to absolve the Democratic Party from its devastating electoral losses: dumb working class whites, dumb whites generally, lazy younger voters, non-factual news, international forces out of anyone's control. Now it is bias against urban voters.
Wake up: no matter what the extant factors and lay of the land are, the Democratic Party LOST: it was unable to convince a sufficient number of voters in the right places to vote for it. The only long term solution is a radical revamping of the party from top to bottom.
NYT pieces like this profoundly weaken the demand for radical party reorganization by deflecting blame from where it belongs: it ain't us, it is the system.
Wake up: no matter what the extant factors and lay of the land are, the Democratic Party LOST: it was unable to convince a sufficient number of voters in the right places to vote for it. The only long term solution is a radical revamping of the party from top to bottom.
NYT pieces like this profoundly weaken the demand for radical party reorganization by deflecting blame from where it belongs: it ain't us, it is the system.
9
I don't see how explaining how the electoral system weights the rural areas, by design, served here as an excuse. If we can't have articles like this anymore and would have to turn into exclusive self-demeaning, we would be even further from home.
1
Tyranny of the minority
3
This piece might be more accurately be titled "The Rural Vote’s Disproportionate Abandonment by Both Political Parties over a Thirty Year Period."
4
All the bemoaning about the electoral college rings hollow. There wasn't a peep of complaint about the electoral college from 99% of the people now complaining, and this brings us to the partisan worldview that is the problem in politics.
Glad to see that you're all about reform. Wish you were talking about it earlier, but okay, I hear your point.
And I also disagree with your point. Most of the economic gains have gone to the "blue states" that you are looking to award more political power to. The coast got richer while the Rust Belt really started rusting. There's a genius in the electoral college in the way that it makes you reconsider flyover country.
Sorry to continue to burst the coastal/elite bubble.
Glad to see that you're all about reform. Wish you were talking about it earlier, but okay, I hear your point.
And I also disagree with your point. Most of the economic gains have gone to the "blue states" that you are looking to award more political power to. The coast got richer while the Rust Belt really started rusting. There's a genius in the electoral college in the way that it makes you reconsider flyover country.
Sorry to continue to burst the coastal/elite bubble.
8
How many Presidents will lose the popular vote yet win the electoral college before we get rid of it?
2
Why bring this up again?
This is how our country was created. This is why each state has 2 senators no matter how big or small it is, going all the way back to 1787. A balance between big cities and rural areas is what the founders wanted.
Don't like it? Then leave.
The Democrats are blaming everything but themselves for the election. Maybe one day they will realize that Hillary was a weak candidate and that most Americans don't think open borders is a good idea.
This is how our country was created. This is why each state has 2 senators no matter how big or small it is, going all the way back to 1787. A balance between big cities and rural areas is what the founders wanted.
Don't like it? Then leave.
The Democrats are blaming everything but themselves for the election. Maybe one day they will realize that Hillary was a weak candidate and that most Americans don't think open borders is a good idea.
5
Plus 650,000 Americans in DC have no representation at all. That makes a resident of Wyoming infinitely more powerful than a resident of DC. DC can't even rule its own locality without Congressional interference. It's a disgrace to Constitutional principles.
4
As much as I am loathe to admit we need to have one party counterbalance the urges and ideas of the other. People should feel free to live where they like, and for many the choice is binary. HRC was a bad candidate. Admitting that clears you to begin thinking about 2018. For years the GOP has been grass roots, taking the reins of local and state control. Starting over from the grassroots is the only way. This party is too top down and it allowed Trump to win.
3
I'm all for splitting Pennsylvania.
The EC renders "one man, one vote" an illusion of our "democracy". Should be eliminated but the Republicans who benefit most from it will never allow that.
3
This is a sour grapes article. This subject wasn't broached when Clinton was expected to win with 352 electoral votes. It reads as a hit piece to take away the voice, via casting a vote from anyone who doesn't live in a large city, which are mostly populated be liberals.
5
I'm curious to know how many articles like this were written when it was believed that there was a "blue wall" of states that provided Democrats with an electoral college advantage. It would be interesting for The Upshot to use their analytic capabilities to determine the amount of written as well as spoken media commentary on this topic post the 2000 and this year's election vs the eight year period during the Obama administration.
When Obama was winning the vote in enough rural countries to give him a significant electoral college advantage, I don't seem to recall any discussion of this topic. In fact, the "blue wall" advantage was far more frequently written about and discussed than any mention of under-representation of urban areas or doing away or modifying the electoral college.
It seems like a more thorough discussion of the founding fathers rationale for the electoral college is warranted. This, and other articles in the NYT the last week or so have focused on only a subset of the original rational for the current system. I've yet to see any mention of the founding fathers concern for the "tyranny of the majority". The sudden increase in these types of articles seem to highlight why such concerns are warranted.
Maybe a data based piece on all of the popular vote democracies through history and how they faired through time would better serve your audience.
When Obama was winning the vote in enough rural countries to give him a significant electoral college advantage, I don't seem to recall any discussion of this topic. In fact, the "blue wall" advantage was far more frequently written about and discussed than any mention of under-representation of urban areas or doing away or modifying the electoral college.
It seems like a more thorough discussion of the founding fathers rationale for the electoral college is warranted. This, and other articles in the NYT the last week or so have focused on only a subset of the original rational for the current system. I've yet to see any mention of the founding fathers concern for the "tyranny of the majority". The sudden increase in these types of articles seem to highlight why such concerns are warranted.
Maybe a data based piece on all of the popular vote democracies through history and how they faired through time would better serve your audience.
6
My high school interns could devise a better field plan that the HRC campaign had this year. Here in NC, a SWING STATE, the campaign did nothing aside from recruit to recruit to recruit, and register voters until October 15th. Our polling locations opened on October 20th. The state house race I ran the field on slammed it. We had 64% of our registered voters in and out by the close of early voting, and we were a targeted to flip to red race, and we won by over 5,000 votes. I ran the same race in '14, flipping the seat to blue, where we won by less than 500 votes. It works IF you work it. I learned plenty this year to add to what I'd learned in previous years, and so my next race I'll be even better.
2
Oops, that was supposed to be *64% of our registered Democrats!
Oh quit whining. Democrats ONLY whine about the 229 year system when they lose.
(1) The electoral college votes = the total number of Senators and Congressmen
(2) The US Senate was NEVER designed to allocate the number of Senators based upon the populations of different states. It was designed to equally represent the interest of each state (an independent political unit) no matter how many people lived in each state.
In 1790, the total population was 3,929,214 and there 13 states that had ratified the Constitution (others had not yet done so)
Delaware had 59,096 people and 2 Senators.
Virginia (the largest) had 747,610 people and 2 Senators
(2) House members per state are proportioned by population. 1 House member to xxx number of people.
(3) A state's electoral votes are (a) same number as it has in the House & (b) +2 for its Senators
Wanna make the Electoral College equalized with each elector for XXX people?
Then you get rid of the +2 which represents that Senators.
That would mean Wyoming gets 1 vote and California gets 57
Now here is the bad news for the whiners. Trump would STILL have won. CLinton won 17 2/3 states + DC and Trump 32 1/3 states.
The study that showed nearly 60% of college grads under 65 had little or no knowledge of history or US government is true! Less than 1/3 of grads 25-34 know how the Constitution is amended but 76%+ of those over-65 know
https://www.goacta.org/images/download/A_Crisis_in_Civic_Education.pdf
(1) The electoral college votes = the total number of Senators and Congressmen
(2) The US Senate was NEVER designed to allocate the number of Senators based upon the populations of different states. It was designed to equally represent the interest of each state (an independent political unit) no matter how many people lived in each state.
In 1790, the total population was 3,929,214 and there 13 states that had ratified the Constitution (others had not yet done so)
Delaware had 59,096 people and 2 Senators.
Virginia (the largest) had 747,610 people and 2 Senators
(2) House members per state are proportioned by population. 1 House member to xxx number of people.
(3) A state's electoral votes are (a) same number as it has in the House & (b) +2 for its Senators
Wanna make the Electoral College equalized with each elector for XXX people?
Then you get rid of the +2 which represents that Senators.
That would mean Wyoming gets 1 vote and California gets 57
Now here is the bad news for the whiners. Trump would STILL have won. CLinton won 17 2/3 states + DC and Trump 32 1/3 states.
The study that showed nearly 60% of college grads under 65 had little or no knowledge of history or US government is true! Less than 1/3 of grads 25-34 know how the Constitution is amended but 76%+ of those over-65 know
https://www.goacta.org/images/download/A_Crisis_in_Civic_Education.pdf
3
To help your readers accurately interpret the data you provide, it might be useful to include the Census Bureau's definition of urban or rural. Most of your readers might be surprised to find out that urban, for the census, generally includes any community of 2,500 people or more.
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/uafaq.html
I would think most of your readers would assume an urban area's population threshold would be higher than this. 50,000? 100,000? 500,000? It probably depends on where you live as to how you would define "urban."
With the data you use, the definition of urban spans from metropolitan New York down to the hundreds of small communities scattered across the country.
So your premise that "urban" areas vote predominantly for Democrats doesn't necessarily follow from the data and the census definition. There are large swaths of territory that may look rural to someone in Manhattan, but by the definition you employ here, they are classified as urban. And many of these "urban" areas voted Republican. I think more in-depth analysis may be warranted.
https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/uafaq.html
I would think most of your readers would assume an urban area's population threshold would be higher than this. 50,000? 100,000? 500,000? It probably depends on where you live as to how you would define "urban."
With the data you use, the definition of urban spans from metropolitan New York down to the hundreds of small communities scattered across the country.
So your premise that "urban" areas vote predominantly for Democrats doesn't necessarily follow from the data and the census definition. There are large swaths of territory that may look rural to someone in Manhattan, but by the definition you employ here, they are classified as urban. And many of these "urban" areas voted Republican. I think more in-depth analysis may be warranted.
The Founding Fathers were scared to death of the hoi polloi, democracy and direct representation. Voting registration restrictions were many and strict.The government established reflected that fear:
Only The House of Representatives was directly elected, and then for just 2 years.
US Senators were elected by their respective State Senate. See also: 17th Amendment...
The President was elected by a College whose members were not bound to vote for the candidate tor whom they were pledged.
HRC received more of the popular vote than did Trump, but fewer Electoral College votes.
In 2010, 2012 and 2014 Democrat candidates for the House received more votes than did Republicans, and won fewer seats due to rampant gerrymandering.
It’s not that HRC ran an especially bad campaign. HRC was beaten by an archaic system, as intended by the FFs, and Democrat House candidates are beaten by a system unanticipated by the FFs.
It’s The System.
And, as with any system, it all comes down to whose ox is being gored.
Only The House of Representatives was directly elected, and then for just 2 years.
US Senators were elected by their respective State Senate. See also: 17th Amendment...
The President was elected by a College whose members were not bound to vote for the candidate tor whom they were pledged.
HRC received more of the popular vote than did Trump, but fewer Electoral College votes.
In 2010, 2012 and 2014 Democrat candidates for the House received more votes than did Republicans, and won fewer seats due to rampant gerrymandering.
It’s not that HRC ran an especially bad campaign. HRC was beaten by an archaic system, as intended by the FFs, and Democrat House candidates are beaten by a system unanticipated by the FFs.
It’s The System.
And, as with any system, it all comes down to whose ox is being gored.
9
"It’s not that HRC ran an especially bad campaign. HRC was beaten by an archaic system"
That's incorrect, and a lack of introspection will doom the Democrat party to further defeats. Its important to note that Trump did well in many states that Obama won handily in 2012 including Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Pennsylvania. Yes, Hillary did run a bad campaign or perhaps she was not the best candidate the Democrat party could have fielded, otherwise she would have won those states that Obama won twice and there would be no electoral college discussion. I would suggest that the Democrat party study WHY people in those states voted why they did, rather than blaming the founding fathers.
That's incorrect, and a lack of introspection will doom the Democrat party to further defeats. Its important to note that Trump did well in many states that Obama won handily in 2012 including Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa and Pennsylvania. Yes, Hillary did run a bad campaign or perhaps she was not the best candidate the Democrat party could have fielded, otherwise she would have won those states that Obama won twice and there would be no electoral college discussion. I would suggest that the Democrat party study WHY people in those states voted why they did, rather than blaming the founding fathers.
2
"perhaps she was not the best candidate the Democrat party could have fielded"
Bingo...
Bingo...
1
Its time to reverse the meaning of the old southern call for 'States Rights.' I am tired of giving my hard earned money to all of the takers in middle America. I am willing to pay for a (reasonable) national defense and that is all. Cut all federal government spending and move all the power to the states. I am happy to take the same amount of money we send to federal government and spend it responsibly in my state. Let's make sure we keep the proportion of the federal debt by state the same as it is today, of course. Those states with relative outflow of funds would get less debt versus those state that get more from Washington they send to Washington.
4
When Trump cuts tax rates you will be giving less to middle America and those states will look as dismal as Brownback's Kansas.
Elections do have consequences...
If the presidency were determined by popular vote alone, the campaigns of both candidates would have been designed and executed very differently. Each would have worked to get more votes in states where they already had a safe margin, and each would have worked to get as many votes as possible in "lost" states. That is not how either Trump of Clinton campaigned, and it is not how their supporters made voting decisions (many supporters of each may have stayed home in states where the outcome was not contested). While this is an interesting article, the fact remains that we do not know, and cannot ever know, how the election would have turned out under different rules.
3
Will nothing make the Clinton's go away? We lost to Trump because Clinton was so unpopular. President Obama said Trump was elected fairly. Now we have people trying to overturn the electoral college to force her into the White House. No more!
3
No. Hillary will continue tomorrow for what she values, the welfare of women and children.
1
No one is trying to force her into the White House. The article is merely highlighting the obvious faults in your system.
Clinton was so unpopular she got 1,200,000 more votes on NYTimes count as we comment and rising.
1
The alternative is an election where the small states become an immediate afterthought for politicians. Elections will be fought in less than 10 states, and the Democrats will win every election from now until; well forever. Which is the entire point of this article and the bill in congress.
1
They would only win if their policies remain popular with a majority of the population. That seems pretty reasonable. They wouldn't win every election, because Republicans would change their policies to be more electable.
Wasn't it the point of the legislators at the time to influence the division of power, which comes down to what you say the critics want to change? I think it's fair to examine the weighting of votes and look into the effects.
You have a high regard for Republicans, it seems...
I agree with commenters who point out that the author of this article demonstrates a breathtaking level of ignorance. Lets start with the title: one of the stated purposes of the Electoral Party was to add weight to the voter who lives in a rural state, to even out power between urban and rural America.
6
A second post. There are ways of addressing this problem that don't involve changing the constitution. The obvious one is to split up some states-- make California and Texas into three states and NY and Pennsylvania into two and make the District of Colombia into a state. I don't want to attach too much significance to this suggestion. What I mean to say is that when the inevitable need to change the situation finally becomes irresistible, ways can be found to do it without changing more than we want to. Where there is a will there is a way.
2
The United Kingdom and Canada both award the prime minister's position to the leader of the party that won the most tidings, or members of parliament, not to the one with the most votes.
The United States has used the Electoral College system for more than 200 years. Trump knew the importance of swing states and won almost all of them. Trump won 30 states.
Why Hillary with all her education thought she could win by taking only 20 states but to run up big margins in those states is a mystery. She was a fool if she thought winning 20 states would make her president.
The United States has used the Electoral College system for more than 200 years. Trump knew the importance of swing states and won almost all of them. Trump won 30 states.
Why Hillary with all her education thought she could win by taking only 20 states but to run up big margins in those states is a mystery. She was a fool if she thought winning 20 states would make her president.
2
There is a whiff of bad conscience in all the brouhaha about Democrats winning the popular vote but being under-represented in the Electoral College and in Congress. Instead of addressing the root causes of this political divide, Democrats seem resigned to consider it a God given perpetuity, and therefore concentrate fire on the lack of "one man, one vote". But is this divide really unbridgeable? Is it just the relative depopulation of some states that led to the now standard red-blue divide as regards states? Sure, there is the South where LBJ by his own admission for the noble reason of Civil Rights handed this region to the GOP for the half century that incidentally by now should be over. States like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming had Democratic governors and senators, why not today? Aren't there issues that affect rural residents of now Republican states far more than cities? Fracking, toxic dumps, mountain-top mining, industrial farming, squeeze on dairy farmers, you name it. Howard Dean was right when he tried to prepare the groundwork for a 50 states strategy. He might be over his time to be re-elected DNC chair but I think it's a lot more productive to address these issues than to whine about a constitutional set-up which however justified won't be changed anyway given the course of constitutional change in the US.
8
Yes of course the founding fathers were very forward looking. They saw a time when a concentrated majority would abuse the rights of the minority of our country. To prevent this they instituted the electoral college and what was to be a limited federal government with states free to follow their citizens. With a very powerful federal government the electoral college is one of the few restrictions on the tyranny of the majority.
8
Long ago we should have dropped two senators for each state. It was needed when we became a country, now it lets the KKK and alt right run the country. The electoral college is just bad math. Hillary now has a lead of 1.7 million.
1
It's hard to see rural areas as tyrannized when they are in actuality, subsidized.
3
We should consider that since 1992, Democrats have won the popular vote in every presidential election except in 2004. In the Senate, Texas and California together have 1/5 of the country's population between them yet only four senate votes while several rural and largely white states have a million or less and each get 2 senate votes per state. South Dakota has 700k plus residents and 2 senate votes. California has almost 40 million. I know the Senate was created in such a way to protect smaller states but with some states having such high population concentrations, voters from sparsely populated states have super voting powers. And finally, the House is so gerrymandered that some states with majority democratic votes still have Republican congressional caucus majorities. And let's not forget the GOP controlled states' enthusiasm for voter suppression laws and policies. This is not a tenable situation, especially with the GOP moving so fart to the right and trying to govern a growing liberal majority country. Our constitution was written over two hundred years ago when the country looked very different. We have amended it several times to facilitate the franchise. It seems likely that we will either address the structural imbalances currently skewing our electoral process conservative by diluting millions of American votes or reach a reckoning of disillusionment, apathy or worse, political violence.
3
The author should take a 4th grade civics class. The purpose of the Senate is not to represent population, its to represent the state governments. That is why prior to the 17th amendment Senators were not even elected by popular vote, but were selected by state legislatures.
13
But we have popular vote now. So each vote should carry the same weight as any other vote.
1
And you my friend should go back and read what a disaster this supposed purpose you have contrived has created. I am sure he is fully aware of the "intended purpose", it is the unintended consequence he laments.
1
...and you,Dave, should look up what the term Democracy actually means.
The US at the federal level certainly is not one!
The US at the federal level certainly is not one!
1
So summing it up... the middle of the country gets more voting power and more benefits, while deluding themselves that the cities are taking their money. Once again they went the rich guy waving an American flag and cynically giving lip service to religion. Does anyone wonder why Republicans always cut education funds?
Disproportionate power + lack of education = Trump.
Disproportionate power + lack of education = Trump.
100
Actually, it is the hard left NEA that has degraded the quality of public schools and led the country to the point where incoming college students cannot do 8th grade math and have trouble putting a sentence together.
This, and the entrenched tenured professors in most colleges and universities, have rotted our educational system from within. End politically backed tenure and make all educators/administrators "employees at will" and then watch education improve in the U.S.
This whole system of "crying rooms" and "safe spaces" is a terrible joke on the taxpayers and makes us look like fools in the court of world opinion.
This, and the entrenched tenured professors in most colleges and universities, have rotted our educational system from within. End politically backed tenure and make all educators/administrators "employees at will" and then watch education improve in the U.S.
This whole system of "crying rooms" and "safe spaces" is a terrible joke on the taxpayers and makes us look like fools in the court of world opinion.
Not to mention, is held economically afloat by the commercial centers.
As this article indicates, this is a hold-over from pre-20th century that gives disproportionate power to rural communities. In other words, the areas of dense population only get partial vote to accommodate rural areas while rural votes are given more weight. This anachronistic system should be shelved -- it's out of synch with the country as a whole. Moreover, these rural states are taking more tax dollars than they contribute (I live in a tax export state where I only see part of my tax dollars at work) while many in rural areas benefit from even more tax subsidies.
One person for one vote and each state lifts its own bottom. Why not try that for a change given the depressing outcome of the present system.
One person for one vote and each state lifts its own bottom. Why not try that for a change given the depressing outcome of the present system.
13
Well since it is in the constitution it won't be changed any time soon. Those states with some power are not going to give it up. Now if you would be willing to restrict the federal government to only its mentioned powers states might agree to some changes.
But you can't guarantee there would have been a different outcome. Both campaigns were run with the goal of winning 270 electoral college votes. Period. That HIllary won the popular vote is completely irrelevant.
Had the outcome been determined by a count of the popular vote, both candidates would have run their campaign differently. Donald Trump might have campaigned in California or New York or New Jersey. Hillary Clinton might have campaigned in Texas.
But be honest with yourself. She won the popular vote by accident. Had the popular vote been the goal, you can't claim the outcome would have been any different.
Had the outcome been determined by a count of the popular vote, both candidates would have run their campaign differently. Donald Trump might have campaigned in California or New York or New Jersey. Hillary Clinton might have campaigned in Texas.
But be honest with yourself. She won the popular vote by accident. Had the popular vote been the goal, you can't claim the outcome would have been any different.
1
Clear proof that what worked for America in the 18th century (as decided by 60 old white landowners in Philadelphia) doesn't work for the world of the 21st century. What we need is an entirely new constitution, even if a civil war is necessary to get it. However, neither a war nor a new constitution is going to happen, so we will continue to live with a non-functioning government in an environment without justice.
18
How does it not work for the world?
Worked just fine for Presidents Clinton and Obama. that the democrats nominated someone devoid of charisma is not the fault of the electoral college.
Worked just fine for Presidents Clinton and Obama. that the democrats nominated someone devoid of charisma is not the fault of the electoral college.
I think you'll find the median ages of those white landowners were considerably closer to 40 than 60. And be careful what you wish for re civil war.
Quebec voted for a government pledged to destroy Canada 40 years ago one of the most conservative countries on the planet started to consider writing a new constitution
We have a new constitution. Canada is a 21st century democracy. We have escaped Europe and Westphalia. We are an all inclusive, multiethnic, multicultural, multi constitutional nation state. If British Columbia votes to leave Canada it is free to do so. Canada works better than other nation states because there are no ties that bind.
The depression and pessimism that accompanied our attempt to write a new constitution was warranted. Canada was a European country and we preferred debate to dialogue. What nobody had counted on was that Canada's desire to attract the world's best and brightest we had lost our Western mindset.We abandoned all the mechanisms for compulsion. Canada remained a nation because it gave up nationhood. We gave up so many of the rights considered parts of the rights of a sovereign nation that Canada only looks like a real country from without. Inside we love the new Canada we believe we really are a dictatorship of the people; we are a democracy.
There is something about knowing that either everything works or nothing works that is liberating. It knowing that if you want to talk you have to listen.
America's death on November 8th was not anyone's fault.
It is 2016, we live in a Global Village. The internet lets mail travel at near the speed of light. There is no pony express.
We have a new constitution. Canada is a 21st century democracy. We have escaped Europe and Westphalia. We are an all inclusive, multiethnic, multicultural, multi constitutional nation state. If British Columbia votes to leave Canada it is free to do so. Canada works better than other nation states because there are no ties that bind.
The depression and pessimism that accompanied our attempt to write a new constitution was warranted. Canada was a European country and we preferred debate to dialogue. What nobody had counted on was that Canada's desire to attract the world's best and brightest we had lost our Western mindset.We abandoned all the mechanisms for compulsion. Canada remained a nation because it gave up nationhood. We gave up so many of the rights considered parts of the rights of a sovereign nation that Canada only looks like a real country from without. Inside we love the new Canada we believe we really are a dictatorship of the people; we are a democracy.
There is something about knowing that either everything works or nothing works that is liberating. It knowing that if you want to talk you have to listen.
America's death on November 8th was not anyone's fault.
It is 2016, we live in a Global Village. The internet lets mail travel at near the speed of light. There is no pony express.
1
The Permanent Apportionment Act was short sighted. We need to build a convention center outside of Washington to house 1,500 to 1,600 representatives and to return the principal of proportional representation to the US. The Capitol Building is an archaic, a symbol of our blissful ignorance. We need more Californians making law in this country. Why? That state has chosen to enforce higher environmental standards than the country as whole. Our elected national government is on the verge of environmental policy that will accelerate climate change. We desperately need democracy.
13
We desperately need everyone to respect the constitution, which Obama is famous for not doing, thus Trump.
Spare me democracy, I'll take a republican form of government. And God please spare us all government by Californians! If I want California's government, I'll move there...
I live in Utah, about one mile from Wyoming.
Wyoming has one electoral vote per 195,000 residents.
Utah has one electoral vote per 495,000 residents.
California has one electoral vote per 700,000 residents.
The unbalanced representation in the Senate may be impossible to change, and part of me thinks it should not be--rural folks sometimes need to remind our urban cousins that we still exist. But the electoral college needs to go. There is no justification for this level of unbalanced representation.
Wyoming has one electoral vote per 195,000 residents.
Utah has one electoral vote per 495,000 residents.
California has one electoral vote per 700,000 residents.
The unbalanced representation in the Senate may be impossible to change, and part of me thinks it should not be--rural folks sometimes need to remind our urban cousins that we still exist. But the electoral college needs to go. There is no justification for this level of unbalanced representation.
92
Well the justification is the constitution. If you want it changed go for it, that will be a waste of time and effort. Or you could move to some other country you like better.
1
My vote doesn't count at all. The District of Columbia, my home, has no representation in Congress. Population-wise we're larger than Vermont and Wyoming.
Clinton has a 1.5 million vote lead. Trump should be reminded of this at every possible opportunity.
Clinton has a 1.5 million vote lead. Trump should be reminded of this at every possible opportunity.
90
This issue was addressed with the creation of the US Senate. Two senators per state regardless of population. Yes, each state has a lot of power. Each state can choose its own rules. We are too big to expect uniformity across such a large geographic area.
7
Emily, in order to label this distribution as "disproportionate", you would have to first assume that rural and urban should have equal agency. This may be true in an ethnically homogeneous society, but it should not be in a multicultural one.
The rural areas better represent the majority of a nation, and the cosmopolitan cities should be intentionally sidelined so that the fate of the nation is not decided by minorities.
The only alternative is to abolish democracy and install rule by an ethnocentric government, but America has not reached that stage yet.
The rural areas better represent the majority of a nation, and the cosmopolitan cities should be intentionally sidelined so that the fate of the nation is not decided by minorities.
The only alternative is to abolish democracy and install rule by an ethnocentric government, but America has not reached that stage yet.
3
Ryan Wei, that is ridiculous. Our government is premised on the fundamental concept of 'one person, one vote.' Your comment boils down to institutionalized disenfranchisement of those who do not fit the parochial white Western European immigrant, churchgoing, rural model. And at this point in history, that model points back to a late 19th century culture and way of life that is no longer viable - not now, and not in the future that our country's voters and political discourse need to address.
16
Nonsense.
1
"The rural areas better represent the majority of a nation"
Are you kidding me????
Are you kidding me????
1
These rural voters also have more financial clout than those people in the urban centers. They pay fewer taxes and get more government subsidies. The senators and representatives from those rural areas had the audacity to try to deny funding to help people in the New York area recover from Hurricane Sandy yet have their hand out demanding help for any natural or man made disaster than happens to them. These voters chose Trump, a climate change denier, and when they're victims of floods or droughts made worse by climate change, they'll be expecting help yet again to get them out of the mess that they helped get themselves into. Something is very wrong with this picture.
121
At some point we will need to recognize and reconcile the principle of 1 person, 1 vote. That needs to apply to the districts of the House and to the Presidency. Otherwise, we do not live in a democratic country, and I will continue "harping" on this until we do.
43
The Electoral College coddles a special interest group known as "middle America", bestowing on them a seemingly super-set of rights that places their votes higher than those of some of their fellow citizens. Hence, we are not all equally represented under the Constitution. (bam)
65
Take Montana, which just reelected a Democratic Governor rather than a Republican tech person who has lived in Montana for several years spending money there. However, they voted overwhelmingly for Trump who has done nothing for the state. This makes little sense at all. They always seem to elect one Republican Senator and one Democratic Senator for forever. Since I grew up there and spend 6 weeks of the year there, I keep up with all of the issues there. In Minnesota, the people voted in the primaries for Sanders and Rubio. Lots of upsets happened during this election cycle. Many people were not happy with either choice and I believe that is what has happened and I wouldn't read anything definitive into it of urban versus rural. Time will tell during this four years what will happen as most people will be paying more attention to reality rather than assume anything anymore about the American people.
6
Amending the Constitution is a long process. A proposed Amendment must be approved by 2/3 of the members of both the House and the Senate (good luck getting that through the current bodies!) and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. It has been suggested that same result could be handled if enough states (those totaling at least 270 electoral votes) would enact into state law the National Popular Vote agreement. I only found about this movement from another commenter. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com I haven't delved deeply into the specifics of this plan but it sounds like it could work as long as the states' laws were somehow made unrevokable.
4
You should know that only 10 states have agreed to this proposal, and all of them are deep,blue. Not a single red or battleground state has shown interest, and none of them are likely to. Time for Dems to accept that they lost the election and figure out what they are going to do differently in the future to get a different result.
2
This analysis is irrefutable. We live with an electoral structure that resembles nothing so much as the "rotten borough" problem of Britain in the years before 1832. It is unsustainable and it will change with or without major trauma. That said, this has little or nothing to do with the failure of the Democrats to find unifying themes for their platform, themes that would appeal to the same groups that Trump picked up. It is not for a lack thereof. Wage stagnation, the need for uniform access to health care, pension protection and the need for low cost education for all and retraining for industrial workers should be at the center of any liberal agenda, yet in the recently concluded campaign no one seems to have felt that these issues were anywhere in evidence in the Democratic platform. That, of course, created a vacuum in the America left behind by corporate negligence and the inevitable consequential technological obsolescence of much heavy industry in the U.S. a vacuum that Trumpian white supremacist quasi-fascism filled.
13
Let's see. According to this article and those who keep harping on about Clinton winning the popular vote, whoever gets the most votes should win the Presidency. OK. So if the popular vote is the only vote that counts, then let's forget about the small towns and their concerns. Simply focus on what those who live in the largest cities and urban centers in the largest states want. There is no need for the candidates to even go to the far reaches of this vast country to campaign at all. But America is more than just its urban areas. The Electoral College ensures that the candidate who is most representative of all geographical areas in the Union wins. Whilst not perfect, that is how it should be.
18
A government for the people and by the people should not mean some people are more important than other people. If all men are created equally, then all should count equally.
Add those two theories together and you have to conclude that more people should have more influence. Since the majority of the people are urban, then urban interests should come first.
Add those two theories together and you have to conclude that more people should have more influence. Since the majority of the people are urban, then urban interests should come first.
6
Yes but right now rural voters have super powers, especially in the Senate. It seems untenable that almost 40 million voters in California only have 2 senate seats compared to North and South Dakota, Wyoming, Kansas, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa, and I probably could add others who combined don't equal the total population of California but each have 2 seats. I am sure if we work hard, we could develop a system that would better reflect and represent voting power in all parts of the country. I appreciate your concerns for protecting rural areas but right now the system is not representative and disenfranchises millions of American voters by diluting the power of their vote.
4
Beat...you're not addressing the fact that each state has its own governor and legislature. Many (most?) of the Founders wanted it this way; they preferred issues and problems to be resolved at a local level. Of course, as the article points out, this country is far different than it was 200 years ago, and, the Founders were not infallible.
Maybe some change is in order, but, in our current state, can you imagine how difficult it would be to amend anything in the Constitution?
Maybe some change is in order, but, in our current state, can you imagine how difficult it would be to amend anything in the Constitution?
Ms. Badger counts suburbs and exurbs as if their residents were soul-mates to our heavily-urbanized Democrats; and, of course, they’re not. While exurbs (prosperous areas that lie between suburbs closer to a city and true rural areas) tend to be home to Republicans who outnumber Democrats significantly – and exurbs are the fastest growing neighborhoods in the U.S.; close-in suburbs are home to both and tend to be more evenly-divided. If you eliminate from the “urban” count EVERYONE outside our cities, they don’t represent anything remotely LIKE 80% of our population, but closer to 30%. If you group with cities their close-in suburbs, which aren’t anywhere near as overwhelmingly Democratic as the cities themselves, you get 50%-60% of the population.
The closeness in the election just conducted is evidence that the relative influence of Republicans and Democrats, rural/exurb vs. city/suburb (kinda) is quite close – most of our battleground states and other states as well won by Mr. Trump were won by a whisker. The popular vote difference between them that likely will amount to about 1.5% of voters could have gone either way.
Having exploded her premise, I could argue that Ms. Badger’s reasoning is bootless and her conclusions are equally invalid; but I won’t – yet. Ponder on.
The closeness in the election just conducted is evidence that the relative influence of Republicans and Democrats, rural/exurb vs. city/suburb (kinda) is quite close – most of our battleground states and other states as well won by Mr. Trump were won by a whisker. The popular vote difference between them that likely will amount to about 1.5% of voters could have gone either way.
Having exploded her premise, I could argue that Ms. Badger’s reasoning is bootless and her conclusions are equally invalid; but I won’t – yet. Ponder on.
8
She argues against our federal system that was concocted to preserve the relevance of our smaller states and communities to our governance. If that compromise had not been reached, the smaller states never would have signed on to the Union and we wouldn’t have a country. Organization of the U.S. Senate also was such a compromise. If smaller states HAD signed on without those compromises, their cultures would have been destroyed by the weight of the larger states – or they would have attempted to secede far earlier than 1861.
In order to change all this, the smaller states (and their constituent communities) would need to agree to commit cultural suicide by permitting a constitutional amendment or constitutional convention (new constitution) to render them powerless. This will never happen.
Not only are Ms. Badger’s conclusions invalid because her premise is invalid, but the only redress that would satisfy her is impossible. ALL of us wasted our time by reading this op-ed.
You want concentrated cities and the Democrats in suburbs to have more power over the cumulative and impressive electoral power of exurbs and rural areas? Then get more Democrats to move to God’s Country. Can’t? Then make better arguments.
In order to change all this, the smaller states (and their constituent communities) would need to agree to commit cultural suicide by permitting a constitutional amendment or constitutional convention (new constitution) to render them powerless. This will never happen.
Not only are Ms. Badger’s conclusions invalid because her premise is invalid, but the only redress that would satisfy her is impossible. ALL of us wasted our time by reading this op-ed.
You want concentrated cities and the Democrats in suburbs to have more power over the cumulative and impressive electoral power of exurbs and rural areas? Then get more Democrats to move to God’s Country. Can’t? Then make better arguments.
11
Richard...the present system is unfair, but, I agree with your conclusions. A substantive change can't be done, won't be done.
There will never be another "Miracle at Philadelphia".
There will never be another "Miracle at Philadelphia".
1
Well said, sir.
1
It should be one man, one vote. Period. The archaic electoral college was invented to keep slaves at 3/5th's a vote along with the other southerners from having a disproportionate amount of control over the north. Because the winners of the popular vote have lost 2 out of the last 5 presidential elections (Gore and Clinton) which equals 40% of the time, our electoral system no longer represents the people. Change it now.
156
And yet once again we see the brilliance of the framers of the Constitution. especially Jefferson in his distrust of centralized power. The electoral college was brought into existence for just this reason because the framers wanted people outside of major population centers to have the same voice in government as those in the concrete jungles. What amazing forethought and insight on their part to build such a failsafe into the election and representation process.
If it weren't for the electoral college every presidential election would be decided by 4 states New York, Florida, Texas and California. Everyone else would be left standing on the sidelines with their votes being meaningless.
The electoral college is the only means by which we can be assured that every American legal citizen is properly represented. It stands guard against the fraud and illegal votes so cherished by the modern day morally and ethically bankrupt democrat party. Long live the Constitution and the electoral college !
If it weren't for the electoral college every presidential election would be decided by 4 states New York, Florida, Texas and California. Everyone else would be left standing on the sidelines with their votes being meaningless.
The electoral college is the only means by which we can be assured that every American legal citizen is properly represented. It stands guard against the fraud and illegal votes so cherished by the modern day morally and ethically bankrupt democrat party. Long live the Constitution and the electoral college !
15
That wasn't the point of the college though. The linn of the college was for the electors to occasionally overthrow the will of the people. As in ignore it.
Constitutionally, they could vote in Clinton should they choose.
That rural states count more is because we have not grown the size of Congress in 100 years. California should have 12 more Members of Congress to be on parr with Wyoming.
Knock off the Senate's door for rural power. What your are arguing for is the equivalent of retaining 3/5ths a person just because you are rural. Which should go the way of slavery.
Constitutionally, they could vote in Clinton should they choose.
That rural states count more is because we have not grown the size of Congress in 100 years. California should have 12 more Members of Congress to be on parr with Wyoming.
Knock off the Senate's door for rural power. What your are arguing for is the equivalent of retaining 3/5ths a person just because you are rural. Which should go the way of slavery.
5
macman, You write, "And yet once again we see the brilliance of the framers of the Constitution." The brilliance of the framers was also shown by their decision that Blacks in your State couldn't vote but for purposes of representation, each Black person was worth 3/5 of a White person. For the sake of purity, and the clear intent of the framers, shouldn't we go back to that "brilliant" system?
2
MacMan, Now only about six states are really contested and Alabama and New Jersey are not one of them.
Don't you want to be courted just a little!
Don't you want to be courted just a little!
What we have now is a travesty - Hillary has a popular vote edge of almost 2 million, and counting; if the final tally goes to her advantage by 3-5 million, the prez-elect will be a poseur as far as being ' elected by the people ', which comes on top of GOP'ers losing House seats as well as Senate seats.
Not good in a democracy.
The graph showing the historic low of 17% of the population being able to elect enough Senators to control that body is counter to the known intent of the Founders, as expressed by G. Washington, on the last day of the Constitutional Convention, when he held the process up in order to get more Representatives in the House:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-repr...
G. Washington considered fair representation to be everything, and it seems the country should at least get back to the point where it would take 30% of the population to elect enough Senators to control the institution - same as it was when the Founders created it, so ' originalists ' should have no quarrel.
p.s. - The author doesn't mention how the rural states usually have less fragmented media markets, making it cheaper for GOP'ers to leverage their incumbency at election time, than in more populous states with several different media centers.
Not good in a democracy.
The graph showing the historic low of 17% of the population being able to elect enough Senators to control that body is counter to the known intent of the Founders, as expressed by G. Washington, on the last day of the Constitutional Convention, when he held the process up in order to get more Representatives in the House:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/enlarging-the-house-of-repr...
G. Washington considered fair representation to be everything, and it seems the country should at least get back to the point where it would take 30% of the population to elect enough Senators to control the institution - same as it was when the Founders created it, so ' originalists ' should have no quarrel.
p.s. - The author doesn't mention how the rural states usually have less fragmented media markets, making it cheaper for GOP'ers to leverage their incumbency at election time, than in more populous states with several different media centers.
17
The simple reality is we will not have equal rights for all US citizens until the Electoral College is destroyed. If middle-America is so concerned with more populous states holding undue sway, perhaps the answer isn't to claim greater power over other fellow voters and US citizens, but to come up with policies that can be universally championed and unassailable. As opposed to the often controlling and discriminatory policies that often emanate from more insular, less inclusive societies.
13
Dan from SF epitomizes the thinking of the "coastal elite" that would rule our country from their bastions of Far Left Liberalism. They tell us that they are better educated, more insightful, and the "Masters of the Universe" to take a line from Tom Wolfe's 'Bonfires of the Vanities.' [Excellent read]
Branding most of the land area in our country as being populated by rubes "who cling to their religion and guns" is what polarizes the populace. The Dems are in serious disarray and have a retreat somewhere to reconsider their vision for the country. The Clinton Foundation could fund this meeting in some suitably upscale location, e.g. Monaco, Luxenbourg, or at George Soros' place in Katonah, NY.
Branding most of the land area in our country as being populated by rubes "who cling to their religion and guns" is what polarizes the populace. The Dems are in serious disarray and have a retreat somewhere to reconsider their vision for the country. The Clinton Foundation could fund this meeting in some suitably upscale location, e.g. Monaco, Luxenbourg, or at George Soros' place in Katonah, NY.
2
We have a tyranny of the minority and unfair political representation because some states which would hardly qualify as counties in more populous states each have two senators and at least 3 electoral votes. It may be past time to have a constitutional convention and restructure these existing 50 states and rationalize them into 10 to 13 states of approximately equal population of 35 million citizens or so. Though few politicians would support this because there would be fewer political positions available for them to run for, every citizen should. The new states would each have the critical mass to provide services and protect rights while providing equal representation and sharply reducing the cost of government. Think of how many local and state positions could be eliminated, not to mention reducing the number of senators by two thirds. And each new super state could decide whether it wanted to provide universal healthcare, free college, guaranteed retirement, high speed rail and efficient modern infrastructure or wanted to provide barebones government and libertarian assurances. What we do know is that what we have now is unfair to most of us. We're're on the verge of becoming ungovernable and and at risk of being completely dysfunctional as a country.
10
The conclusion of the article is chilling
The rural voters " electorate strength, and even these funding formulas, have not translated into policies that have fixed the deep economic problems they face, from high unemployment to declining wages"
POWER THAT CAN NOT FIX PROBLEMS IS NOT POWER.
So the core problem is not the electoral college. Which, in any case, is as good as you can do in a multi state system as evidenced that the EU had to adopt the a similar system that giving small States disproportional weight.
The core problem, is that voting power no longer translates into political power.
How come ?
Noam Chomsky has long maintained that the US has only one party, the business party, that has two wings with slightly different policies - and both are controlled by big donors.
Bernie Sanders won every rural district outside the big cities in the NYS primary.
That should tell you something
Rural voters perceived Hillary Clinton to represent the party of Wall Street, and Sanders the Party of the Progressive. Alas the Wall Street Wing of the Democratic Party prevailed over the Progressive Reform wing, supported by the young and the rural
That opened the door to Trump - seen with great reservation in rural areas but at least perceived not to be in the pocket of big money
The rural voters " electorate strength, and even these funding formulas, have not translated into policies that have fixed the deep economic problems they face, from high unemployment to declining wages"
POWER THAT CAN NOT FIX PROBLEMS IS NOT POWER.
So the core problem is not the electoral college. Which, in any case, is as good as you can do in a multi state system as evidenced that the EU had to adopt the a similar system that giving small States disproportional weight.
The core problem, is that voting power no longer translates into political power.
How come ?
Noam Chomsky has long maintained that the US has only one party, the business party, that has two wings with slightly different policies - and both are controlled by big donors.
Bernie Sanders won every rural district outside the big cities in the NYS primary.
That should tell you something
Rural voters perceived Hillary Clinton to represent the party of Wall Street, and Sanders the Party of the Progressive. Alas the Wall Street Wing of the Democratic Party prevailed over the Progressive Reform wing, supported by the young and the rural
That opened the door to Trump - seen with great reservation in rural areas but at least perceived not to be in the pocket of big money
4
Politicians love this system. They believe rural people are yokels who do not have the means to force their elected officials to be accountable to the people. It is not really feasible for those in rural areas to hold mass demonstrations, or pay for pricey legal help. And this cynical strategy of taking accountability to citizens out of the equation seems to be working -- look at the influence of big corporations and cultural "conservatives" on our policies. It is not the rural areas that are benefiting.
7
The American educational system seems to always focus on the perceived "genius" of the Constitution and the wisdom of the founding fathers. They must have been geniuses to create such a wonderful system, that formed such a great nation. Nothing succeeds like success.
Maybe this moment of National soul searching will be a positive and we can begin to face our issues without the rose coloured glasses of Nationalism. America is already great.
Maybe this moment of National soul searching will be a positive and we can begin to face our issues without the rose coloured glasses of Nationalism. America is already great.
3
A Canadian praising our political system.
Are you being sarcastic?
Are you being sarcastic?
It is my understanding that the number of electoral votes assigned to a state is proportional to the population of the state. If that is not true please provide evidence. If it is true then the premise that the rural states have an advantage in being over represented is not true.
I live in a rural area and didn’t vote for Trump, being a liberal myself. I would support getting rid of the electoral college. However, both the DFL and GOP waffle on this depending on the recent elections results. They are fine with it when they win and not when they lose. One, to be considered as serious person, must be more consistent than that. The next time the DFL wins based on the electoral college and not on popular vote, I will still support getting rid of the electoral college.
Now, the senate is a different thing. There, the rural states are significantly over represented.
I live in a rural area and didn’t vote for Trump, being a liberal myself. I would support getting rid of the electoral college. However, both the DFL and GOP waffle on this depending on the recent elections results. They are fine with it when they win and not when they lose. One, to be considered as serious person, must be more consistent than that. The next time the DFL wins based on the electoral college and not on popular vote, I will still support getting rid of the electoral college.
Now, the senate is a different thing. There, the rural states are significantly over represented.
3
Example 1: every state is represented by 2 senators, regardless of population.
Example 2: congressional district drawing is geographical based more than population based, meaning population living in city centers may not have the same representative::constituents ratio as rural area of the state, even thou the total # of representatives corresponds with total population of the state.
Example 2: congressional district drawing is geographical based more than population based, meaning population living in city centers may not have the same representative::constituents ratio as rural area of the state, even thou the total # of representatives corresponds with total population of the state.
Please correct me If I am wrong but a minimum of 700,000 population is needed for one house representative and the current distribution is one representative per 720,000 which is in proportion to the population of California or Wyoming and so as the electoral votes. I do not understand the disproportionate power of rural here. The only thing is, there is a cap of 435 maximum and even if there is an increase in the population of California or Wyoming, the number of representative will remain same because of the cap.
4
The total number of representatives remain the same but states gain and lose congressional seats based on their proportionate share of the population. This happens all the time. Florida, for example, because of its population growth relative to the country as a whole, has gained 4 congressional seats in the past 20 years. These seats came from rust belt states that are shrinking relative to the population as a whole.
It's really not that hard to understand.
It's really not that hard to understand.
1
The gerrymander.
If we vote for President without the Electoral College, we'll simply have the will of the East and West Coast forced on the rest of us. Thank God the Founding Fathers built a republic. For those of us living between the coasts, we've seen your solutions - crime, crumbling cities, polluted lands and more. We've decided to pass and we continue to support a Federal system of government that represents us all.
8
You need to get out more. It is the rural areas that are crumbling. All the wealth is created on the coasts and all the subsidies flow inland. Drive across the country and compare any of the urban areas with the rural areas. The difference in quality of life is stunning. A recent study showed teen pregnancy much higher in rural areas; most other indices of socio-pathology are also higher. California is not suffering from a heroin crisis. I could go on and on but I doubt it would help. The folks on the coasts are the ones who went to school , work hard and pay both their mortgages and your subsidies so quit biting the hand that feeds you.
3
Consider another perspective: no one forces you to live outside the cities. You do so by choice. Why does this bestow you with a disproportionate vote? Urban, suburban, country, rural votes should all count the same.
The "small states" receive plenty of power through the Senate. Presidents should be chosen by majority vote, plain and simple.
The "small states" receive plenty of power through the Senate. Presidents should be chosen by majority vote, plain and simple.
1
Have decent policies and champion individual freedoms, Middle America, and then the coasts will get on board with you. Why shouldn't the majority of citizens -- We The People -- have the right to self determination? The Electoral College disenfranchises voters and is an affront to the natural laws and our right to lead ourselves. The EC is just shenanigans meant to improperly weaken the will of the voters.
1
No. No. No. Let's stop with the excuses. The wake is over. We have had our time to grieve and to spend any more time looking for excuses delays addressing the bigger questions. Such as, "How are we failing so badly that we lost to the most vile candidate in American histroy?" Trump should have lost over 40 states. It is easy to call them all racists and misogynists but what we should really be doing is asking "Have we become the party of Limosuine Liberals?"
27
They might not all be racists and misogynists, but by casting a vote for Trump — whatever the reason — only serves to condone such behavior. In this case, you really ARE either with him or against him.
1
Yet somehow Democrats are called the party of the entitled. For all of the rhetoric about Democrats as the "handout" party, the GOP has come to represent those who believe they are entitled to certain political and social benefits simply because of who they are, where they were born, and where they live. The paradox the Democratic Party now confronts: those who are steadfastly, stubbornly bent on retaining undemocratic privileges (political, social, and economic alike) cannot be squared with those attempting to create a more equal, inclusive society. Unfortunately, coalition-building is increasingly beginning to look like a zero-sum process rather than the win-win it could and should be.
14
I can’t imagine the current Congress acting to correct the underrepresentation of populous states in the House. This would necessarily cost the majority party its clout, which is a reliable way of gauging feasibility. If I’m upset at the framers for anything, it’s that they didn’t bake stronger protections against this scenario into the Constitution.
As for the Senate and Electoral College, there are ample benefits mentioned in this article to defend their presence. Even though rural voters wield more influence than their urban counterparts, the hostility towards this imbalance doesn’t excuse Democrats’ failure to appeal to rural citizens. There have been substantive accounts of swing state voters in rural areas failing to find a candidate that represents their needs in Washington. How strange is it to have that much electoral power and yet have your vote downplayed by a major political party.
As for the Senate and Electoral College, there are ample benefits mentioned in this article to defend their presence. Even though rural voters wield more influence than their urban counterparts, the hostility towards this imbalance doesn’t excuse Democrats’ failure to appeal to rural citizens. There have been substantive accounts of swing state voters in rural areas failing to find a candidate that represents their needs in Washington. How strange is it to have that much electoral power and yet have your vote downplayed by a major political party.
2
The electoral college and even distribution of Senate seats may grant rural areas disproportionate representation, however, the concepts were woven into the Constitution as part of the grand bargain to induce the states to bind together in our grand enterprise. The Senate insures that even the smallest states has the same voice. Although initially proposed for other reasons, the Electoral College has evolved into the same concept making tiny New Hampshire for example a battleground state in 2016. To change the game now would break a basic and critical under which our Republic was formed. That also is why a constitutional amendment has little chance of emerging for ratification.
7
I'm surprised that you did not mention slavery in your description of the founding fathers reasoning for the creation of the electoral college. Those enslaved could not vote but counted as 3/5 of a man and therefore contributed to the electoral college. Balancing the large advantage of the voting population of the North. Our nations history informs our nations present.
16
Exactly, the toxic legacy of slavery and the Confederacy is as alive as ever.
3
How about California dividing into two states like the Dakotas did? Northern and Southern California.
Then we get twice as many electoral college votes which is a better representation of our population...
Then we get twice as many electoral college votes which is a better representation of our population...
39
No, you would get 2 additional electoral votes. Assuming the same population in the new states, let's call them N California and S California. The two states combined would have the same number of congresspersons as the combined state, but a total of 4 senators. If, on the other hand you broke into Coastal California and Inland California, there would still be a total of 2 additional electoral votes, but Inland California went mostly Trump, which would have increased Trumps electoral win! As always, be careful what you wish for....
What does rural mean? The mental image is a majority of full time farmers. That's not applicable to many counties in Virginia and other eastern states. Many of the residents commute to office jobs and many others are retired. Most of the farmers here have other sources of income. One has done flooring for us and another renovations. So while the county is classified as rural, agriculture isn't the primary source of income for many and isn't the only source for many of the farmers.
5
I have often considered writing a column on the rules of golf. Today I missed four fairways by mere feet. There needs to be a rule about the minimum size of a fairway.
I also lipped a few putts. Again, the cup favors those closer to it.
If I dump thousands of dollars into lessons, equipment, memberships, fees, and personal trainers and I fail to achieve my expected result then some things need to change!
I also lipped a few putts. Again, the cup favors those closer to it.
If I dump thousands of dollars into lessons, equipment, memberships, fees, and personal trainers and I fail to achieve my expected result then some things need to change!
12
Unless the fairways narrow and twist a bit each summer, and the pitch on green shifts too, I don't see this analogy.
PK that column might be more interesting. Surely
we would not be seeing these articles had HRC won
the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote.
Let's move forward and creatively approach the issues we
need to address. Enough liberal hand wringing and blaming.
we would not be seeing these articles had HRC won
the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote.
Let's move forward and creatively approach the issues we
need to address. Enough liberal hand wringing and blaming.
2
Try swimming.
2
Isn't the demise of rural farms and small-scale food production a BAD development? Doesn't our philosophical embrace of local production means and local economies a validation of Thomas Jefferson's insights? Without political (over)representation, the people of this country will become even more disconnected to its geography and to terra firma, in general.
The fraction of a percent difference in the popular vote between Trump and Hillary is mostly due to California's late voting. If popular vote was an objective for the campaigns, Trump might have campaigned there of course. (He had quite a cushion of electoral votes, as it turned out.)
The fraction of a percent difference in the popular vote between Trump and Hillary is mostly due to California's late voting. If popular vote was an objective for the campaigns, Trump might have campaigned there of course. (He had quite a cushion of electoral votes, as it turned out.)
3
But only in theory, meaning that we should never become so ignorant as to take our agricultural roots (pun intended) for granted.
Yet we already do. The small farmer is, by design, shoved out of the system by larger, richer "farms" who shape if not write up laws. Subsidies favor volume, and volume is the multi-farm owner. Oh there are instances of "small" farms, cooperatives, and so forth who've figured it all out, best they can, but in general, American attitude champions and believes that Bigger is Better, so that's who wins.
Consequently, those small or underpopulated states are actually being taken advantage of. There is little that Trump (or any Republican) has promised that will actually help them. Jobs will not fall from the sky; less taxation would only result in going back to dirt roads and a volunteer fire department, if not some underpaid sheriff and a deputy or three covering vast areas (which is already the case in many areas).
But for those who basically think capitalism is a way of life, and that there is no other way of life, then exploitation is the norm, is the main tool to stay in power and to make money.
It is only when American citizens decide that not only is that unacceptable, but it is a lie. A country that takes care of itself first is a strong country. And neither Republican or Democrat, or Trump, whatever he really is, understands that because profit does not make a country strong; well-fed, educated, and civil people make a country strong.
Yet we already do. The small farmer is, by design, shoved out of the system by larger, richer "farms" who shape if not write up laws. Subsidies favor volume, and volume is the multi-farm owner. Oh there are instances of "small" farms, cooperatives, and so forth who've figured it all out, best they can, but in general, American attitude champions and believes that Bigger is Better, so that's who wins.
Consequently, those small or underpopulated states are actually being taken advantage of. There is little that Trump (or any Republican) has promised that will actually help them. Jobs will not fall from the sky; less taxation would only result in going back to dirt roads and a volunteer fire department, if not some underpaid sheriff and a deputy or three covering vast areas (which is already the case in many areas).
But for those who basically think capitalism is a way of life, and that there is no other way of life, then exploitation is the norm, is the main tool to stay in power and to make money.
It is only when American citizens decide that not only is that unacceptable, but it is a lie. A country that takes care of itself first is a strong country. And neither Republican or Democrat, or Trump, whatever he really is, understands that because profit does not make a country strong; well-fed, educated, and civil people make a country strong.
1
The US is a federal republic of states, not one nation. The Electoral College acknowledges that fact. Indeed, our system of government was very carefully designed to make sure no one state could dominate the Union and, in general, to make it very difficult to change the direction of the nation rapidly. Trump can trace his success right back to over reach by Obama in 2009-2011. The system is working as intended.
9
Who carries the most of the financial burden?
I would call the current system taxation without proper representation.
I would call the current system taxation without proper representation.
26
Even without the electoral college we would still be a federal republic. That's the purpose of Congress: all states are equal in the Senate and population size indexes the House. There's absolutely no reason that each and every vote should not count exactly the same in electing the President. Please explain what constitutes urban versus rural in terms of individual political power. So what if one lives in a "small" place? No one forces people to live where they do. It's a free country, right?
1
Vermont is the most rural state in the nation. It gave T^ump less than a third of its votes. The problem is not rural/urban it is about political culture. Vermont has always been first in equality and justice and democracy. The outgoing Dem Governor and the incoming Rep Governor issued this joint statement.
Montpelier, Vt. – Governor Peter Shumlin and Governor-elect Phil Scott today issued the following statement on concerns raised by Vermonters ...
"At this time of national discord, Vermont can present a united voice urging compassion, commitment to community, and fierce dedication to equal rights and justice. The example we set for the nation can help guide us forward through this turbulent time.
“Vermont’s reservoir of goodwill is deep and our national leadership well documented. Our history is of being first to stand up for equality, inclusiveness, and tolerance is well known. Even in the face of the ugly, sometimes discouraging, reminders of how much further we must go in our pursuit of equal rights and a just and tolerant nation, we will not be deterred. Instead, we will be more resolved to help where there is need; listen where there is frustration; and act where there is injustice.
“As President Calvin Coolidge said ... ‘If the spirit of liberty should vanish in other parts of the Union, and support of our institutions should languish, it could all be replenished from the generous store held by the people of this brave little state of Vermont.’
Montpelier, Vt. – Governor Peter Shumlin and Governor-elect Phil Scott today issued the following statement on concerns raised by Vermonters ...
"At this time of national discord, Vermont can present a united voice urging compassion, commitment to community, and fierce dedication to equal rights and justice. The example we set for the nation can help guide us forward through this turbulent time.
“Vermont’s reservoir of goodwill is deep and our national leadership well documented. Our history is of being first to stand up for equality, inclusiveness, and tolerance is well known. Even in the face of the ugly, sometimes discouraging, reminders of how much further we must go in our pursuit of equal rights and a just and tolerant nation, we will not be deterred. Instead, we will be more resolved to help where there is need; listen where there is frustration; and act where there is injustice.
“As President Calvin Coolidge said ... ‘If the spirit of liberty should vanish in other parts of the Union, and support of our institutions should languish, it could all be replenished from the generous store held by the people of this brave little state of Vermont.’
11
For every rule there is an exception. Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Wyoming,...are the rule, VT the exception. Just check the election map.
Vermont, the whitest state in the nation with a population of little over 600,000 people. Let's see how it does once it's demographics become more representative of the rest of the country
WE don't have to change the constitution: The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3
That would so dilute the 2 senator + N representatives in the Electoral College as to make this disproportionality problem during elections moot. Hold the right wing to its insistence upon original intent. Technology today makes roll call in a much expanded House of Representatives much more feasible than the "538" House + Senate total we have now. A jobs bill if ever: think of how expensive lobbying would get with a House holding 10,000 representatives ! 10,000 x 30,000 constituents = 300 million!
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 3
That would so dilute the 2 senator + N representatives in the Electoral College as to make this disproportionality problem during elections moot. Hold the right wing to its insistence upon original intent. Technology today makes roll call in a much expanded House of Representatives much more feasible than the "538" House + Senate total we have now. A jobs bill if ever: think of how expensive lobbying would get with a House holding 10,000 representatives ! 10,000 x 30,000 constituents = 300 million!
4
The Electoral College is an undemocratic, archaic barrier to the will of the people. It shows how the GOP continue to have a distorted influence on US politics. Gerrymandering and malapportionment, have no place in a true democracy.
Hillary Clinton has not questioned the Presidential vote. Donald Trump said the vote would be rigged unless he won. Trump was right, the presidential vote was a fix....against the Democrats and Hillary Clinton.
Would Donald Trump have accepted the presidential vote if he had close to 1.5 million more votes than Hillary Clinton, yet lost the Electoral College vote?
Hillary Clinton has not questioned the Presidential vote. Donald Trump said the vote would be rigged unless he won. Trump was right, the presidential vote was a fix....against the Democrats and Hillary Clinton.
Would Donald Trump have accepted the presidential vote if he had close to 1.5 million more votes than Hillary Clinton, yet lost the Electoral College vote?
63
So true. Honestly, can you imagine the violence if Trump had won the popular vote by 1.6 million but lost the presidency? The suddenly-supportive Trumpers who extol the electoral college are sickening. They wouldn't be doing that if Trump lost. There certainly wouldn't be the graciousness we've seen from Clinton and Obama. The pitchforks would come out, along with their assault rifles.
In every way, this election was disgusting. With more, so much more, to come.
In every way, this election was disgusting. With more, so much more, to come.
2
Yes
2
No Berman, we can't imagine the violence. Republicans are too busy to riot. You know, doing things like working and raising families.
2
All that residents of the disadvantaged states need to do is to invade the privileged states en masse. The funding for this could be set up by the same big players that are speaking futilely about the West Coast seceding.
I'm sure they'll love us.
I'm sure they'll love us.
2
I think the Electoral College is just fine. Its impact on this election is magnified because Mrs. Clinton won the popular vote. I don't support the notion that rural voters feel forgotten and left out. They voted for a deplorable human being to be the President. That cannot be excused. It is becoming increasingly clear that social media was manipulated and the potential Democratic vote was suppressed in states that narrowly went for Trump. Rather than try to change the Electoral College let's get Congressional districts that are drawn so there is a real contest in the general election instead of these gerrymandered safe Republican and safe Democratic districts.
14
You seem to have a leaning towards fairness. What is the point of holding on to the Electoral College when, by its very nature, it is unfair and undemocratic?
Will the whining and crying about this election never cease! Trump defeated Clintin based on the rules at hand. Trump and his people were smarter than Clinton and her people.
Trump based his campaign on the economy and flipping swing states where the deplorables voted for Obama in '08 and '12. Clinton based her campaign on identity politics and trying to scare the bejeezus out of her various groups and sub-sets.
Trump said he would have won the popular vote if that determined the winner of the election. I believe him because he was the only person who was right about this election every step of the way.
Even the Clinton supporters should give Trump some credit for being the smartest person in the room.
Trump based his campaign on the economy and flipping swing states where the deplorables voted for Obama in '08 and '12. Clinton based her campaign on identity politics and trying to scare the bejeezus out of her various groups and sub-sets.
Trump said he would have won the popular vote if that determined the winner of the election. I believe him because he was the only person who was right about this election every step of the way.
Even the Clinton supporters should give Trump some credit for being the smartest person in the room.
21
Let's dissect the various parts of your comment:
Yes, Trump won fair and square. It hurts, but it happened. However, it's reasonable to point out, as we are having a discussion about the power of the Electoral College, that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin.
Trump also said in '12 that the Electoral College was a "disaster," when he briefly (and mistakenly) believed that Obama won the electoral college but not the popular vote. It's reasonable to point out that the same mechanism that elected Trump was also one he decried just four years ago.
The Democrats have a lot to do to refine their messaging and bounce back from this election. But pointing out fundamental, situational truths is not "whining and crying."
Yes, Trump won fair and square. It hurts, but it happened. However, it's reasonable to point out, as we are having a discussion about the power of the Electoral College, that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by a significant margin.
Trump also said in '12 that the Electoral College was a "disaster," when he briefly (and mistakenly) believed that Obama won the electoral college but not the popular vote. It's reasonable to point out that the same mechanism that elected Trump was also one he decried just four years ago.
The Democrats have a lot to do to refine their messaging and bounce back from this election. But pointing out fundamental, situational truths is not "whining and crying."
70
Washington DC has a larger population that Wyoming and Vermont but the people who live there don't get the same representation as other citizens (no senator and only a non-voting representative to the House). Although DC does get electoral votes in the presidential election, the number is restricted by law to the same number as the least populated state (Wyoming). Doesn't sound very democratic to me.
1
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Smart? No, not if that means knowledge, preparation, principles, consistency, attention to the public good. Showman appealing to the basest instincts? Sure.
I agree - rural areas have more power than densely populated areas, if you compare on a population basis. But this doesn't bother me (a Californian) - and it shouldn't bother you.
Just because a state has 10x the population does not mean that it is entitled to 10x the power and funding, as this column implies. If you aim to guarantee basic quality of life improvements to citizens - decent roads, the ability to call 911, local education, etc. - rural area require more funding per -person simply because they are spread out. Were cities in charge, I doubt the money would be distributed equitably - it would be given "equally," if that. Distributing power equally attempts to address this issue - it's an imperfect solution, but it seems to be working as expected.
Just because a state has 10x the population does not mean that it is entitled to 10x the power and funding, as this column implies. If you aim to guarantee basic quality of life improvements to citizens - decent roads, the ability to call 911, local education, etc. - rural area require more funding per -person simply because they are spread out. Were cities in charge, I doubt the money would be distributed equitably - it would be given "equally," if that. Distributing power equally attempts to address this issue - it's an imperfect solution, but it seems to be working as expected.
20
We are talking here democracy and that in its foundation means 1 woman/man=1 vote. Beyond that there needs to be protection for minorities. But currently the fundamental approach is now put upside down.
I don't understand what is here so hard to grasp?
I don't understand what is here so hard to grasp?
5
Informer, I understand your point, but governing majorities seldom reach a just distribution of resources. Here in NC, we have long had provisions that granted more money for schools in poor counties and in small counties. But the recently elected (rural-dominated) General Assembly has often been downright hostile to urban areas, refusing to fund urban transit projects and seizing control of locally-funded public utilities. The proceeds of a recent extension of the sales tax will go exclusively to poorer (rural) counties, even as there are large populations of poor citizens in our cities. This kind of imbalance is only occurring because of pervasive gerrymandering that systematically favors Republican voters.
3
Sounds like socialism to me: from each according his means, to each according to his needs. Rural areas need more money so they should get it, cities produce more money so they should give it, based on what is "equitable" not was is "equal." Fascinating argument.
4
This is a call and an opportunity for all disaffected citizens to focus on their local affairs, and pay most attention to their local leaders particularly their mayors and governors. The federal government is a form of a deaf tone monarchy so rich and unresponsive to the real needs of its citizens. We should encourage the republicans to slash the federal income taxes and then turn around and push for local tax increases so that we could be more in control over our needs and spending. Republicans have always been right about their call to shrink the federal government but they never believed in their claim and never meant it. Let's challenge them with their own words.
8
No doubt there will be lots of letters demanding change but change is not what you will get. Two senators per state, forever. The electoral college, forever. Take those features along with American conservatism and nothing changes ever.
6
Ah yes, the Electoral College. Proof that the "Founding Fathers" were not quite so wise as many Americans give them credit for.
They made sure that slavery continued to be the law of the land, even though they said slaves couldn't be imported after 1808 - they made sure that even after 1808, existing slaves and their offspring would remain slaves. (Overturned in 1865 by amendment.)
They said that US Senators were not to be elected by popular vote. (Overturned in 1913 by amendment.)
They said that the US President was not to be elected by popular vote. As we all sadly know, that has not been overturned.
Just those 3 items by themselves don't sound like wisdom. Nor does it sound like a democracy. European countries are more democratic than the US, because in Europe the winner of the popular vote is the winner. No nonsense there about not trusting the "common folk."
Let's stop adoring the "Founding Fathers" and think of them as white slaveholders who didn't trust the US individual voters.
They made sure that slavery continued to be the law of the land, even though they said slaves couldn't be imported after 1808 - they made sure that even after 1808, existing slaves and their offspring would remain slaves. (Overturned in 1865 by amendment.)
They said that US Senators were not to be elected by popular vote. (Overturned in 1913 by amendment.)
They said that the US President was not to be elected by popular vote. As we all sadly know, that has not been overturned.
Just those 3 items by themselves don't sound like wisdom. Nor does it sound like a democracy. European countries are more democratic than the US, because in Europe the winner of the popular vote is the winner. No nonsense there about not trusting the "common folk."
Let's stop adoring the "Founding Fathers" and think of them as white slaveholders who didn't trust the US individual voters.
446
What you are decrying were all compromises, either to form the Union in the first place or desperately to try to keep it together.
1
The "founders" were wealthy, slave owning, white landowners who wanted to keep the power concentrated in the hands of wealthy, slave owning, white landowners!
They have succeeded beyond their wildest imagination and we now have an illegitimate usurper in the WH!
They have succeeded beyond their wildest imagination and we now have an illegitimate usurper in the WH!
3
"European countries are more democratic than the US, because in Europe the winner of the popular vote is the winner."
Actually. No. Europeans do not even vote for the head of government. It is a bunch of members of parliament that, after the vote is cast, get together and trade horses trying to form a government and appoint a Prime Minister.
It is very common in European national elections to have tiny parties (e.g. Green party) holding sway over who becomes Prime Minister.
Actually. No. Europeans do not even vote for the head of government. It is a bunch of members of parliament that, after the vote is cast, get together and trade horses trying to form a government and appoint a Prime Minister.
It is very common in European national elections to have tiny parties (e.g. Green party) holding sway over who becomes Prime Minister.
3
Why not mention that we have not grown the House of Congress since 1917? Had we grown with population, and not abided a limit established due to WWI, we'd have over 1,000 Members of Congress. California and New York would be adequately represented, and the 2 electoral votes Wyoming gets from its Senators would be washed out. We should not limit our representation on the number of desks in the House.
Our revolution was about inadequate representation as much as taxation. The French Revolution was about the lack of power of the common folks as much as the lack of taxes on the 1%. In Britain it wasn't just the colonies that were under represented, it was all of the new industrial cities. York didn't have a member of Parliament until 1830, while vanished towns still sent their representatives. Had British reapportionment happened in 1750 rather than 1830 the US probably would not have rebelled.
You have to have a body where representation is based on population. Just by 38 million to 580,000 (CA vs WY population) California should have 65 members of congress, not 53. The large states are being robbed of their representation in Congress.
If this isn't fixed within the next few years and politics continues its current course, you'll see succession efforts in blue states, beyond California.
Our revolution was about inadequate representation as much as taxation. The French Revolution was about the lack of power of the common folks as much as the lack of taxes on the 1%. In Britain it wasn't just the colonies that were under represented, it was all of the new industrial cities. York didn't have a member of Parliament until 1830, while vanished towns still sent their representatives. Had British reapportionment happened in 1750 rather than 1830 the US probably would not have rebelled.
You have to have a body where representation is based on population. Just by 38 million to 580,000 (CA vs WY population) California should have 65 members of congress, not 53. The large states are being robbed of their representation in Congress.
If this isn't fixed within the next few years and politics continues its current course, you'll see succession efforts in blue states, beyond California.
218
Jen, from a fellow San Franciscan to another...I agree with your assessment. It makes total sense to me that California secedes from a union that seems to be out-of-step with a majority of the people of this nation. Our GDP is $2.5 trillion; sixth largest in the world. I understand that some of us have done better than others; at my community college with have the Second Harvest Food Bank for students who are hungry. But, those students are successfully using a tool that has been used for generations, and that is open access education to help themselves and their families reach a better quality of life.
I have not seen many of the people who voted for Trump, rolling up their shirt sleeves and getting an education.
Thank you for voicing an opinion I share, but just didn't have the energy at the moment to share.
I have not seen many of the people who voted for Trump, rolling up their shirt sleeves and getting an education.
Thank you for voicing an opinion I share, but just didn't have the energy at the moment to share.
2
As a Californian, I can understand the sentiment. However, I do not think that secession is a good idea. Even without considering the fact that there is no constitutional provision to secede, there are several other factors that give me a pause. We get mostly our water from the Colorado river for one. If California seceded , I do not see the democrats winning another presidential election in the near future or a house majority for that matter. Let's not leave our fellow progressives out in the cold :)
3
Nothing is scarier than 1000 Congresscritters.
Washington DC should develop an agricultural zone so that it could get one representative and two senators.
It currently has a larger population than several rural states.
It currently has a larger population than several rural states.
44
Rural America's revenge, for once, being forgotten by the 'elites', thwarted the elections towards a guy promising to change their sore status of joblessness and despair, as coal (as an example) is being replaced by cheaper gas and oil, and the latter eventually to renewable sources of energy (solar, wind, etc), a switch democrats were obtuse enough to ignore, to their loss. Trouble is, the rural folks chose a know-nothing arrogant guy, a selfish demagogue telling them what they wanted to hear...and not what they needed to hear. Trump won practically by cheating his deceived audience into believing that his nasty and persistent lies were the truth. Soon enough, we shall see him, and his team in action, an unscrupulous bunch creating havoc where there was order. If Congress, persistently obstructionist when Obama tried to pursue infra-structure jobs, does snuggle up to Trump, a 'racist' component will be in evidence. But it may create jobs in due time; otherwise, democrats may be favored again.
18
that's why it's revenge, they got to set back progress for everyone. wow, hope it makes 'em happy.
1
I am in favor of the electoral college, but clearly it needs some amendment, so States with the higher populations are fairly represented. As your piece points out, it's been coming on for a long time -- the coming meaning the breaking of a system that can no longer (in its present form) do the job it is supposed to -- that being electing a person like Donald Trump. A man who is woefully unfit for this job -- a man who poses, I believe, a real danger to our democracy. I like to think our foundations are strong enough to withstand his demagoguery, but I have my doubts. The Founders must be turning over in the graves at the spectacle this has wrought and just think it only took about 240 years to rear the ugliness they tried so hard to prevent.
21
Though I'm not sure how, since it's a state issue, we have to find an objective solution the gerrymandering of congressional districts. Both parties indulge in this. Surely there is an algorithm that can be applied using mapping data and census data to objectify this.
1
This bias extends into many meaningful areas. Serious gun control measures will never be enacted as long as these rural delegations can kill it, no matter how badly the cities need serious efforts to curtail the widespread availability of handguns and other non-sporting weapons.
224
We don't want your gun control, and guess what? We just defeated a radical anti-gun Democrat. And just wait until 2018.
1
Yet you won't let us keep your guns out of our cities.
2
Translation : Rural farmers must not have the same power as urban elites. The value of citizenry cannot be the same in rural towns as in urban cities. Their problems are archaic and uninteresting, compared to the thrill of the cities.
My guess is, Badger has not lived in a rural area, or traveled around the country. She must -- that will be a real education for her.
My guess is, Badger has not lived in a rural area, or traveled around the country. She must -- that will be a real education for her.
20
The "rural farmers" are outnumbered. That's it. Why should their votes outweigh the votes of residents in our heavily populated urban centers? It's also the case that the despised urbanites pay the red states' bills. This situation needs to be rectified before our country goes completely off the rails.
185
RE: "This situation needs to be rectified before our country goes completely off the rails."
Didn't we already go completely off the rails allowing Trump to get away with a campaign of lies?
Didn't we already go completely off the rails allowing Trump to get away with a campaign of lies?
12
1. "Urban" does not = "elite" (and I'll assume that holds for Dallas)
2. Most U.S. citizens live in cities
3. Should 10,000 votes should be weighed equally to 10,000,000?
"3" is the untended consequence of of the Electoral College today. It was intended to equalize representation for "agrarian" states which no longer exist. Rural life is not agrarian life.
2. Most U.S. citizens live in cities
3. Should 10,000 votes should be weighed equally to 10,000,000?
"3" is the untended consequence of of the Electoral College today. It was intended to equalize representation for "agrarian" states which no longer exist. Rural life is not agrarian life.
14
Trump won in over 2000 US. counties and Clinton won about 900. I can't seem to find the exact count.
But basically Clinton only won on the coasts and the larger cities. In the majority of states that have GOP governors, gerrymandering looks to have a lot to do with the way these votes came out.
It is hard to say what the framers of the constitution would have done had they had any idea of how the world would modernize. They did know a bit about electricity but no idea of its potential. Travel was by horse and wagon, or sailing ships. Guns were muzzle loading flintlocks. The idea of the jet airliner, the diesel locomotive, was beyond their imagination.
Civilization had been the same for thousands of years, there was no expectation that it would change. They did not consider political parties, they detested them. However, they did make it possible to change the law. The one flaw being which party was in control at the time. As long as the GOP is the dominant party, the electoral system will stay the same as it is.
It will take a revolt by the majority to correct this situation, and that is what these self styled patriots are stocking up on their guns for. But even the Czars and their army could not stop a citizens revolt. So it had better be done democratically, or it will be done like the French did it, a few purges and it becomes mob rule.
But basically Clinton only won on the coasts and the larger cities. In the majority of states that have GOP governors, gerrymandering looks to have a lot to do with the way these votes came out.
It is hard to say what the framers of the constitution would have done had they had any idea of how the world would modernize. They did know a bit about electricity but no idea of its potential. Travel was by horse and wagon, or sailing ships. Guns were muzzle loading flintlocks. The idea of the jet airliner, the diesel locomotive, was beyond their imagination.
Civilization had been the same for thousands of years, there was no expectation that it would change. They did not consider political parties, they detested them. However, they did make it possible to change the law. The one flaw being which party was in control at the time. As long as the GOP is the dominant party, the electoral system will stay the same as it is.
It will take a revolt by the majority to correct this situation, and that is what these self styled patriots are stocking up on their guns for. But even the Czars and their army could not stop a citizens revolt. So it had better be done democratically, or it will be done like the French did it, a few purges and it becomes mob rule.
5
Who is stocking up guns for what?
Look at a map. Counties in the west are way bigger than in the east. We could split them up to be smaller if that would make you feel better. Point is, more people voted democrat. There's no mandate.
"But even the Czars and their army could not stop a citizens revolt. So it had better be done democratically, or it will be done like the French did it, a few purges and it becomes mob rule."
This means that Krugman will lead the upper-Manhattan brigade? Perhaps we'll see Dustin Hoffman carrying his artwork to save if from the explosions triggered by the Palo Alto contingent?
This means that Krugman will lead the upper-Manhattan brigade? Perhaps we'll see Dustin Hoffman carrying his artwork to save if from the explosions triggered by the Palo Alto contingent?
1
We are the only "democracy" with this very undemocratic system. The world does not look to the US as a model for democracy -- our voting system is illogical, biased, and lands us in the absurd position of wondering how Trump "won" when Hillary Clinton is going to end up with millions more votes when the popular vote count is completed. To statistically disenfranchise California voters -- when CA is one of the most productive and successful regions on the globe -- is flat out wrong. Other democracies have demonstrated much more fair systems, such as instant run off voting, and one person, one vote. Wanting to preserve the electoral college system is like insisting the framers only intended for us to use a calvary in our armies. Things change. Our unjust voting system needs to change.
276
We are not a democracy.
Why do you people constantly look to the rest of the world for approval. Grow some spine. All countries have problems and if the world does not look to the US as a model of democracy, who cares? Is the rest of the world going to stop taking our foreign aid? Is the rest of the world going to stop selling us their stuff?
1
You've explained why America is not a democracy and why a less educated, less diverse, less inclusive backwater element has been able to stymie President Obama as well as the preferences of the America majority. The system really is rigged, and its in favor of ignorance and intolerance.
775
But President had no problem grasping the concept of the electoral college. Nor did Bill Clinton who didn't receive a majority of popular votes in either of his two presidential campaigns.
2
Bigotry is a big umbrella and it shades too those from NYC who write of "less educated people from the backwater".
2
Amen!
The Confederate states have been blocking progress for 200 years and I will never understand why Lincoln went to war to keep them in the union!
The Confederate states have been blocking progress for 200 years and I will never understand why Lincoln went to war to keep them in the union!
2
Forty-eight percent of eligible voters abstained from voting, so Trump won the presidency with support from about 25 percent of the voters (Hillary got the other 25 percent). This probably has no relation to the electoral college issue, but it's relevant to understanding that Trump won't have a mandate from the majority of the people and is thus likely to rule forcefully, like an quasi-autocrat, probably somewhat like George W. Bush who also didn't get support from the majority of voters.
17
Ah, the Trump echo chamber is still reverberating.
1
The 80% number used for "urban" in this article is misleading. You have to break down the definition of "urban" used for the census numbers: http://www.citylab.com/housing/2012/03/us-urban-population-what-does-urb... . From that piece:
"According to the Census Bureau, a place is "urban" if it's a big, modest or even very small collection of people living near each other. That includes Houston, with its 4.9 million people, and Bellevue, Iowa, with its 2,543."
That link also suggests that about 75% of those "urban areas" are actually small towns. This led to the comment that the majority of the US population is admittedly "non-rural," but that is not the image conjured with the 80% number.
That is not to say that we should not readjust the numbers represented in the Electoral College--we should. Especially if the EC results are so jarringly out of sync with where most people live. But the idea of a straight majority vote for president would cause an even larger portion of our people to feel ignored.
Trump said that if we had a different system, he would have campaigned differently, although it is not at all clear that he could have won without the current EC skews. This election is over, but given the fractious nature of our congressional representatives, it is probable they would be unable to put forward any reasonable readjustments. This will be an uphill battle and 2020 is a major redistricting year. Could the fight be even uglier?
"According to the Census Bureau, a place is "urban" if it's a big, modest or even very small collection of people living near each other. That includes Houston, with its 4.9 million people, and Bellevue, Iowa, with its 2,543."
That link also suggests that about 75% of those "urban areas" are actually small towns. This led to the comment that the majority of the US population is admittedly "non-rural," but that is not the image conjured with the 80% number.
That is not to say that we should not readjust the numbers represented in the Electoral College--we should. Especially if the EC results are so jarringly out of sync with where most people live. But the idea of a straight majority vote for president would cause an even larger portion of our people to feel ignored.
Trump said that if we had a different system, he would have campaigned differently, although it is not at all clear that he could have won without the current EC skews. This election is over, but given the fractious nature of our congressional representatives, it is probable they would be unable to put forward any reasonable readjustments. This will be an uphill battle and 2020 is a major redistricting year. Could the fight be even uglier?
10
Well, as a west coast conservative it's difficult to vote as I know my vote won't count. Oregon is controlled by Portland, plus a bit from the college towns, but the rest of the state is bright red. Similar in California. Talk about disenfranchised, we've got people not living here telling us how we should use the land, or not, don't care about our jobs and simply want to come to places like this on vacation, where the locals can cater to all those smart, sophisticated folks from the big cities....
2
This is right up there with claiming concern about Clinton's server in her basement was misogyny.
19
@Louisa ~ Are you still more concerned with the server Clinton used rather than the multiple conflicts of interest Trump's businesses pose? A singularly unqualified man won the electoral college, beating a woman who was totally prepared to govern in a way that benefited those rural voters! Trump won by stirring fear and hatred and bigotry. May our nation survive him.
15
Democrats have, somehow, not focused on who their voters are and where they live. If they did, they would work tirelessly to end the Electoral College. We are urban and there is more diversity in urban areas, and voters who are not white tend to be Democrats. The Democratic National Committee appears to have been sitting on its hands for some time now. They need to build up Democrats running in regional races in the mostly Republican states by adopting a vocabulary of persuasion that will ring true to voters in those places. And the DNC must push and push for an end to the Electoral College. Why should 194,000 voters in Wyoming have one electoral vote, when it takes about 707,000 Californians to equal one electoral vote?
169
A: The rural states have the power to veto any change in the current system, which would call for a constitutional amendment.
2
Slavery, not romantic visions of rural life, are the key to understanding the constitutional structure; its omission this article whitewashes history. From the role of the electoral college to the apportionment of house districts based on white citizens plus 3/5 of the slave population, to the makeup of the Senate, each "compromise" was intended to preserve southern control of the federal government to ensure slavery, not to enable the domination of the country by rural states. Even though the constitution never mentions the word, slavery lies at its core. "Jeffersonian suspicion" was not suspicion of cities; it was suspicion of the abolitionists who inhabited them. The Civil War was a war to preserve slavery, not a war to preserve the power of rural states. Slavery was and is our original sin, and it remains deeply embedded in our constitutional structure even after ratification of the Civil War amendments.
230
The legal basis for slavery in the US came from the British crown and our origins as British colonies. When the Brits ended the slave trade in 1807, US slave owners were left without a legal basis to hold slaves. What you see in the 3/5 rule and the fugitive slave law, are attempts to establish precedent for slavery in the US Constitution, which was eventually outlawed by amendment.
If the Blue States were not in the position of subsidizing Red States this situation might be a little easier to accept. When you have the creative, forward looking, job building states subjected to regressive policies there is going to be a strain that will build to a break. Mitch McConnell, a senator from a backward, poverty stricken, pollution producing state controlling the Senate agenda. Paul Ryan, from back of beyond in Wisconsin, controlling the House agenda. Following the news from Wisconsin since Walker, they are having a brain drain, a lot of it ending up in Minnesota. I have determined to only buy products from Blue States or foreign and vote with my wallet. Surprise, almost every item I picked up in the grocery store was from California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, no strain at all in filling the basket. Only junk food is produced in the South. Something needs to change. If I hear one more lightly educated persom claim that Hillary is out to get white guys, or is coming for their guns, I'm going to figure out a way not to pay taxes. Trump did it. Maybe I'll buy a casino and run it into the ground.
494
Great idea. And keep your tourist $ from those states.
Carol, thank you for opinion. I value it. I have been grappling with the fact that my 70 year old sister, voted for Trump. She didn't like either choice she said; I told her she could have written in a candidate. We're two white girls who grew up in the 50s and 60s.
I can only believe that she is racist. It pains me to say that, however, the federal safety net has been very good to her, so it's not economic issues. No, she gets her information from Fox news when she gets it, and has a high school diploma. I'm not saying that all people who did not have the privilege of obtaining an education are ill-informed, what I am saying is that race and gender is still a monumental mountain to overcome in this country.
Thank you
I can only believe that she is racist. It pains me to say that, however, the federal safety net has been very good to her, so it's not economic issues. No, she gets her information from Fox news when she gets it, and has a high school diploma. I'm not saying that all people who did not have the privilege of obtaining an education are ill-informed, what I am saying is that race and gender is still a monumental mountain to overcome in this country.
Thank you
4
"The challenge for rural voters now is that their electorate strength, and even these funding formulas, have not translated into policies that have fixed the deep economic problems they face, from high unemployment to declining wages. And it’s unclear how Mr. Trump will do that for them, either..."
Exactly. But, in such areas, the smartest and more prepared persons usually move to the cities ... leaving behind the less smart and less prepared ... who will continue to vote the same way, and, expect different and better results ... the very definition of insanity.
Exactly. But, in such areas, the smartest and more prepared persons usually move to the cities ... leaving behind the less smart and less prepared ... who will continue to vote the same way, and, expect different and better results ... the very definition of insanity.
131
In other words, the fewer the "left behind," the more power they have proportionately to push national public policy to be ever more backward-looking. Pretty soon, the few people left in Kansas will be able to elect each other to the House or Senate, where they'll make sure abortion is illegal, guns are legal everywhere and anytime, all factories operate on steam and coal, and welfare for farmers (i.e., agricultural subsidies) are a constitutional right.
5
Yeah, that's why all those Trump signs were up in front of 3,000 square foot houses on acreage out here in "Bubba-Land", because their owners aren't as smart as you. Your attitude is what cost the Democrats the election. And I was brought up on the East coast, lived in NYC in my twenties and have lived in several states, both red and blue. But I'll take the rural areas now where I can buy a house and leave my door unlocked while I walk through the woods on my own property. You really live in Iowa?
3
lived in Iowa +30 years ... semi-rural area ... So, I have witnessed the exodus first-hand. Am from a true-blue state on a coast. This is not an "attitude" : rather, they are facts of demography and words. Facts and words ... they matter.
3
With all due respect to Professor Lee, her numbers are incorrect. The 25 least populous states have about 50 million citizens. This is around 17% of the national population. But to win a Senate seat, you only need 50% of the vote in any state. So you could theoretically control half the Senate seats with the actual support of fewer than 9% of the country's population.
49
I live in NY. My vote counts for almost nothing.
We pay very high taxes for the services we need to keep city and state running. It's part of the social contract, our common good.
We don't get back nearly what we put in, likewise - the common good - ironically we help subsidize the same parts of the country that don't like us, our tolerance, eccentrics and celebrations of diversity.. they have now elected a madman, not because more Americans actually voted for him, but because of an outdated system. God help us.
We pay very high taxes for the services we need to keep city and state running. It's part of the social contract, our common good.
We don't get back nearly what we put in, likewise - the common good - ironically we help subsidize the same parts of the country that don't like us, our tolerance, eccentrics and celebrations of diversity.. they have now elected a madman, not because more Americans actually voted for him, but because of an outdated system. God help us.
557
The services you need to keep the city and state going are paid for by user fees, local, and state taxes. No one is sending your property tax to Alabama despite what fake news sites like the Daily Kos might tell you.
2
Uh, that madman is a cosseted New Yorker you've just exported. 100% NYC! And a drive through rural NY was one of the most appalling instances of rural neglect on the part of the urban power centers I have witnessed in any part of the USA. Upstate NY doesn't get nearly what it puts in taxes to support the NY metropolis. After 150 years, upstate NY is a relic of the era of Iron and Barge and no one in the cities cares about the hinterland in its own state.
3
How do your local and state taxes do anything for anyone not living in NY?
But I know you are warm tonight thanks to PA, OH, ND, TX and OK.
But I know you are warm tonight thanks to PA, OH, ND, TX and OK.
2
It is certainly true that the rural states have significantly more clout than the urban states. That was part of the compromises made to forge the union, and to protect slavery. Another was the 3/5th rule. Nevertheless, one needs to be careful when fiddling with the rules. We have an example here in Vermont, an overall rural state with a few urban areas. Since "one man, one vote" became law, the urban areas run roughshod over the rural areas. In Vermont, a few areas, most notabley Chittenden County with 25% of the state's population, control the state's legislature and governmental functions. They pass laws and write regulations that make sense for urban areas, but no sense for rural areas. Many of those laws are destructive of the lives of rural Vermonters, but there is nothing they can do about it. That, of course, contributed to the sense of frustration of rural voters, and helped elect Mr. Trump. In the presidential elections, rural voters have clout; in the Senate, rural states have clout; in the states, if they are properly proportioned, rural voters are disenfranchised at every turn.
9
But in terms of the country at large, rural areas dominate in representation, even with a smaller number of actual voters. How is that fair to the rest of the nation? This very frustrating to us on the national level as urban areas pay the bulk of the taxes to subsidize rural areas. We need a better return for our taxes dollars.
Believe me, I have a fair idea how people in Vermont feel. In New York State we have Up-State vs. Down-State pitting New York City and the surrounding suburbs against areas further north. Up-Staters always claim a disadvantage because they feel Downs-Stares have more political clout. This is true, but we also pay more taxes.
Rural voters are disenfranchised for economic reasons, not political ones. No politician can uphold dying industries and outdated technology. No politician can force a company to stay in one location. They have to stop blaming urban areas for their misfortune.
Believe me, I have a fair idea how people in Vermont feel. In New York State we have Up-State vs. Down-State pitting New York City and the surrounding suburbs against areas further north. Up-Staters always claim a disadvantage because they feel Downs-Stares have more political clout. This is true, but we also pay more taxes.
Rural voters are disenfranchised for economic reasons, not political ones. No politician can uphold dying industries and outdated technology. No politician can force a company to stay in one location. They have to stop blaming urban areas for their misfortune.
2
No -- rural voters are not disenfranchised. Each one has (in principle) one vote. Rural voters are in a minority -- that's true -- but that should not give them veto power over the majority. Why shouldn't black voters have the same disproportionate clout?
4
You completely ignored Mr. Limon's point about rural residents of Vermont being ignored. So guess what? As a rural dweller, I'm happy to ignore anything you might have to say.
3
The Electoral College was developed in a time when information moved by horseback. How much longer do we have to be strapped with this antiquated system?
230
The speed by which information is transmitted is no indicator of the worth of that information. Sure, information was moved by horseback way back when, and it seems to me that, despite the lengthy journey, the recipient of such information received something worth reading. Nowadays, we transmit untold bits and bytes of information in speeds so fast we cannot count fast enough to keep up with it. But so what? Just what kind of information gets blasted this way? Most of it is utter nonsense, and derivative garbage. We have not progressed in any substantial way when it comes to intellect, thought, creativity, philosophy. In the days of the Electoral College, people could read and think at a level far beyond those we deem as our smartest these days. Today, we are only able to move our garbage around faster, and for that lack of achievement alone, we should leave the Electoral College alone. Surely the Founders understood far more than we could ever understand.
Electoral college in place as a diversity tool.
1
As long as the Republicans benefit from it and can keep enough power to prevent any changes.
2
I believe that Trump's win is a catastrophe for our country, but the rules of a game determine how it is played.
Just as losers of chess matches can't claim to have won because they took more pawns off the board than the winners, the fact that more people voted for Clinton than Trump isn't meaningful. Had the rules been different (that is, that the winner of the popular vote wins the Presidency), both sides would have played the game differently -- perhaps under those rules, Trump would have won, too.
Just as losers of chess matches can't claim to have won because they took more pawns off the board than the winners, the fact that more people voted for Clinton than Trump isn't meaningful. Had the rules been different (that is, that the winner of the popular vote wins the Presidency), both sides would have played the game differently -- perhaps under those rules, Trump would have won, too.
16
I agree. I'm a Republican and live in Manhattan, so my vote doesn't count. So I didn't even bother to vote. If the popular vote actually counted across the board, I would have definitely voted, and I probably would have voted for Trump even though he's not the ideal candidate. And I'm not the only one - I know many successful professionals in NYC who don't buy into the liberal snob agenda and would have voted Republican if their vote actually had a chance to make a difference. No one will ever say this out loud in Manhattan, because they'd be immediately "unfriended" and branded a racist by the intolerant "tolerant" local elites and their media. Beyond the hypocrisy in that, I also find humor in the fact that I'm just about the opposite of the angry white redneck that the media says I must be. On the contrary, I'm brown-skinned, the son of relatively poor immigrants, and worked hard to get my 2 graduate degrees and 1% income. I consider myself an "American", not a "Hyphenated-American."
I'm sure this is probably also the case with Democrats in overwhelmingly red states. Many people likely stayed home for this reason, and this is why Hillary's "victory" in the popular vote is meaningless. A true popular vote count may have gone either way, so be careful what you wish for.
I'm sure this is probably also the case with Democrats in overwhelmingly red states. Many people likely stayed home for this reason, and this is why Hillary's "victory" in the popular vote is meaningless. A true popular vote count may have gone either way, so be careful what you wish for.
4
@JJ The dynamics of electoral rules doesn't just change how elections come out. It also alters policies, too. Imagine if the country, like Australia, required everyone to vote. This would wipe out the need of politicians to spend vast amounts of money to mobilize "their" voters and dissuade those of their opponents from voting. I suspect that under these conditions campaigns would have to be more nuanced.
By the way, JJ, congratulations on your accomplishments. But be aware, much of how things turn out, for everyone, is luck. In my opinion, any ideology that says that an unregulated economy is morally superior doesn't take this into account. I've kept track of the libertarian friends of my youth. Those for whom things didn't turn out as well as they planned are very grateful for the little social insurance that we still have.
By the way, JJ, congratulations on your accomplishments. But be aware, much of how things turn out, for everyone, is luck. In my opinion, any ideology that says that an unregulated economy is morally superior doesn't take this into account. I've kept track of the libertarian friends of my youth. Those for whom things didn't turn out as well as they planned are very grateful for the little social insurance that we still have.
3
If all this stuff was so important, why didn't Dems take action after Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but lost to W? That's 16 years when those who wanted to could have changed things.
The answer is that this only became really important when Clinton supporters assumed she would win and she didn't.
The answer is that this only became really important when Clinton supporters assumed she would win and she didn't.
40
You seem to typify the low-information voter of which there are far too many in this country.
Removing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. That means that the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures would be required for its passage. In our bitterly divided Congress and country, the chances of any amendment being ratified would be nearly impossible for the foreseeable future.
Removing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. That means that the approval of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures would be required for its passage. In our bitterly divided Congress and country, the chances of any amendment being ratified would be nearly impossible for the foreseeable future.
15
As Ceadan explained, much easier said than done. I noticed you had another largely redundant comment asking why no one spoke up 16 years ago. In fact, many did--there was plenty of discussion about the electoral college system. And if one party keeps electing divisive presidents while losing the popular vote, it's going to get louder and louder until it reaches a breaking point. That's why you're seeing people bringing up ideas than until now have seemed very extreme, like secession.
12
Ceadan, I notice that your insulting reply did not mention the timing between Clinton's loss and the sudden concern about the electoral college. One might think some were some were interested in undermining the election.
I'm a Democrat by the way. Just one that can't stomach a sudden call to change the rules, when the same situation has been occurring since the early 19th century.
I'm a Democrat by the way. Just one that can't stomach a sudden call to change the rules, when the same situation has been occurring since the early 19th century.
6
I live in blue Fairfax County, VA. We have a larger population than the entire state of Montana. It is time to rethink the election process, especially the Electoral College.
790
"The challenge for rural voters now is that their electorate strength, and even these funding formulas, have not translated into policies that have fixed the deep economic problems they face, from high unemployment to declining wages."
It's called the red state paradox. The more these people vote Republican, the more deplorable their lives become. But their insularity, their inclusiveness and sense of entitlement prevents them from seeing this fact.
It's called the red state paradox. The more these people vote Republican, the more deplorable their lives become. But their insularity, their inclusiveness and sense of entitlement prevents them from seeing this fact.
543
Great point, Paul. But are we (Progressives) reaching out to them? Someone has to take the first step. Furthermore, it would need to be be the first among many steps...even in the face of initial rejection. We need to reach out to those who disagree with us because we believe our ideas will carry us to a better nation and world; not because we want to win elections.
4
@Rosana
It's also an opportunity for Democrats to be much more potent in their messaging and outreach. A lot of the reason Republicans get away with malign neglect and still get votes is because Democrats insist on legitimizing this behavior by either "compromising" with it, or by getting into bed with the same interests on the other side of the coin. Democrats need to rediscover their progressive roots, there will be opportunities aplenty under a consolidated Republican government to do so, but only with the right leadership and grass roots strategizing. Rural/working class voters need be reminded repeatedly about Trump's campaign promises and contrasted with with what the reality on the ground will be: Giant tax cuts on the wealthy paid for by program cuts for the middle/poor classes (privatizing Medicare!), and the promised Jobs Nirvana will likely not appear. We will have at least the next 2-4 years to remind the American public why Republican rule is a "bad deal", but we also need to do more than that, which is to provide a positive agenda that is tuned for urban/suburban/small town/rural areas and their various interests. Dust off Howard Dean's 50 State strategy and at least *try*. If they continue to vote like chickens for Col. Sanders after having done that then perhaps an amicable separation is in order, but at least we need to try. I have faith that many of the Obama voters from the WWC that voted Trump will come back home with a better message from the Dems.
It's also an opportunity for Democrats to be much more potent in their messaging and outreach. A lot of the reason Republicans get away with malign neglect and still get votes is because Democrats insist on legitimizing this behavior by either "compromising" with it, or by getting into bed with the same interests on the other side of the coin. Democrats need to rediscover their progressive roots, there will be opportunities aplenty under a consolidated Republican government to do so, but only with the right leadership and grass roots strategizing. Rural/working class voters need be reminded repeatedly about Trump's campaign promises and contrasted with with what the reality on the ground will be: Giant tax cuts on the wealthy paid for by program cuts for the middle/poor classes (privatizing Medicare!), and the promised Jobs Nirvana will likely not appear. We will have at least the next 2-4 years to remind the American public why Republican rule is a "bad deal", but we also need to do more than that, which is to provide a positive agenda that is tuned for urban/suburban/small town/rural areas and their various interests. Dust off Howard Dean's 50 State strategy and at least *try*. If they continue to vote like chickens for Col. Sanders after having done that then perhaps an amicable separation is in order, but at least we need to try. I have faith that many of the Obama voters from the WWC that voted Trump will come back home with a better message from the Dems.
2
This article entirely misses the fact that the electoral college was a solution to preserve the advantages of slavery to rural states. Slave states could inflate their influence on presidential politics because their non-voting slaves counted at 3/5ths of person in calculating the number representatives to the House and the number of electoral college votes.
Thus, in our distorted system, rural states still exploit an advantage that was created to facilitate the propagation of slavery.
The only solution is to amend the constitution to remove this legacy of slavery, and institute direct election of the president.
Thus, in our distorted system, rural states still exploit an advantage that was created to facilitate the propagation of slavery.
The only solution is to amend the constitution to remove this legacy of slavery, and institute direct election of the president.
739
How come nobody spoke up about this legacy of slavery when Gore, who had the popular vote, lost to W? Or the 16 years between then and now?
11
If constitutional amendment is the only way to beat the electoral college system, the system will stay forever. A constitutional amendment requires the assent of 3/4 of the states -- and since so many states are rural, that will never happen.
Maybe not very likely -- but at least possible -- is the proposed compact among certain states (hopefully enough to hold a majority of electoral votes) to give their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide.
Maybe not very likely -- but at least possible -- is the proposed compact among certain states (hopefully enough to hold a majority of electoral votes) to give their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote nationwide.
7
@Louisa ~ The Supreme Court intervened and that received much more discussion than Gore's popular vote win. Too bad there wasn't more discussion. Excellent summation on pbs about SC decision.
"In the concluding lines of his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens proclaimed that "one thing ... is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.""
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_bush.html
"In the concluding lines of his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens proclaimed that "one thing ... is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.""
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/future/landmark_bush.html
6
The first instance of someone winning the presidency but not the popular vote was1824. The next ones were 1876 and 1888. This is not a new thing.
17
4 wrongs don't make it right.
25
It's 5 Ellen. Gore won the popular vote but lost to W in 2000. The silence about this issue back then and the 16 years in between was deafening.
This is only getting attention because Clinton lost.
This is only getting attention because Clinton lost.
8
But three rights make a left.
1
Hillary Clinton's success in winning the popular vote continues to strengthen as absentee ballots are counted. She now has more than 1.5 million votes beyond Trump's numbers. If Trump were fit to serve, perhaps we should "respect the will of the people," as his supporters advise us.
He is not fit to serve as President. It becomes increasingly clear that his political agenda is far out of step with the majority of voters.
Please sign the online petition asking the Electoral College members to exercise their Constitutional responsibility to protect our democracy from this dangerous demagogue.
He is not fit to serve as President. It becomes increasingly clear that his political agenda is far out of step with the majority of voters.
Please sign the online petition asking the Electoral College members to exercise their Constitutional responsibility to protect our democracy from this dangerous demagogue.
835
The manner in which President-Elect has been conducting himself since winning election appears to be a continuation of what he was prior to Nov 9th. Nothing seems to have really changed.
The team he has selected so far is unlikely to rise above the shrill pitch which defined their no holds barred campaign. The expectation that a honorable man will rise from the pit which saw him indulging in rough and tumble of politics has not borne out yet. The recent twitter messages are hardly assuring.
There is time yet to for change process to happen, and we can only hope for the best. But this make belief mode can not be stretched too far.
While there is an absolute necessity for religion to be separate from state, it is also necessary that the state helmsman reflect in person, the core religious values and be perceived as aboveboard, by the whole of free world.
Electoral College members do have a responsibility, to conduct themselves per the premise which the founding fathers had originally envisaged for them.
The team he has selected so far is unlikely to rise above the shrill pitch which defined their no holds barred campaign. The expectation that a honorable man will rise from the pit which saw him indulging in rough and tumble of politics has not borne out yet. The recent twitter messages are hardly assuring.
There is time yet to for change process to happen, and we can only hope for the best. But this make belief mode can not be stretched too far.
While there is an absolute necessity for religion to be separate from state, it is also necessary that the state helmsman reflect in person, the core religious values and be perceived as aboveboard, by the whole of free world.
Electoral College members do have a responsibility, to conduct themselves per the premise which the founding fathers had originally envisaged for them.
5
My experience is that those who file absentee ballots are soldiers or students far from home.
Already have - if only they will do it. This is the exact reason for the option to exist.
2
"Those two senators effectively give Wyoming three times more power in the Electoral College than its population would suggest. Apply the same math to California and it would have 159 Electoral College votes. "
The fact that Donald Trump won the presidency with less popular votes than Hillary Clinton is only explicable through the idea that a vote for Mr. Trump has more power to elect the president than a vote for Sec. Clinton. A vote from an individual in Wyoming, for instance, has more power than a vote from an individual in California. But why should one vote have more power than another? This arrangement is contrary to justice.
The fact that Donald Trump won the presidency with less popular votes than Hillary Clinton is only explicable through the idea that a vote for Mr. Trump has more power to elect the president than a vote for Sec. Clinton. A vote from an individual in Wyoming, for instance, has more power than a vote from an individual in California. But why should one vote have more power than another? This arrangement is contrary to justice.
810
The election was rigged!
1
Have you already forgotten the 3/5ths agreement in the US constitution which gave immense political power to Southern states for the ownership of non voting black slaves?!
America has always been a crude, slapdash thing and never a real democracy-at least no more than Classical Athens, which had about ten thousand voters and hundreds of thousands of non voting residents and gods only know how many slaves. The Union took hundreds of thousands of immigrants straight from steamers arriving from Europe, in NYC and sent the men to fight in the Civil War-many had no idea what the war was about but fought and often were acknowledged great heroes.
The immense growth of the US after WWII had to slow or end eventually. It is sorry that as it slowed, Democrats became increasingly oligarchic-like the GOP.
America has always been a crude, slapdash thing and never a real democracy-at least no more than Classical Athens, which had about ten thousand voters and hundreds of thousands of non voting residents and gods only know how many slaves. The Union took hundreds of thousands of immigrants straight from steamers arriving from Europe, in NYC and sent the men to fight in the Civil War-many had no idea what the war was about but fought and often were acknowledged great heroes.
The immense growth of the US after WWII had to slow or end eventually. It is sorry that as it slowed, Democrats became increasingly oligarchic-like the GOP.
1
New Jersey has mere 14 electoral votes. It is the most dense population in the Union. Talking about fairness Wyoming folks!
2
As a British subject born in the colonies I have lived through the decline and decline of one empire, and now possibly two. The British surged to become a global power after jettisoning an antiquated and rigid aristocracy-based economic culture with a broadly-based mercantile one. The USA started with a clean slate and had an amazing run for 200 years, but now the structural flaws at its foundation are becoming millstones. Particularly with the rise of the self-described constitutional originalists these millstones will become concrete feet, and our decline will accelerate. Right now and for the longest time we have had the productive (blue) states and the welfare (red) states, and so long as the welfare states have a built-in constitutional advantage, then our money will continue to subsidize them. Now that the welfare states are actively biting the hand that feeds, calls will continue for Western states to secede, and/or for populous blue states to sub-divide so as to equalize our power, particularly in the Senate -- 6 Californias, anyone? And if they provoke us by, say, withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities, that will only accelerate our dissolution.
599
I agree 100% with Ian and I believe the only answer is to dissolve the current Union, wipe out the rural power disparity and start over with states forming different unions as best serves their citizens. I am from Tennessee, but long ago stopped finding anything in common with some of the most willfully backward people I've ever known. Let them go their own way in their prideful ignorance and prejudices and let those of us on the coasts build our own country with a few states in between.
286
Please remember that Minnesota, Illinois, New Mexico and Colorado are Blue States.
5
watch the most recent snl skit on the bubble city state and recognition the folly of it all. regardless of how small you make the government there will always be a 2v1 tribalistic split.
1
If we are not going to reshape our electoral process into a true democracy by adhering to the basic concept of majority rules, then we should not expect the most populace states to financially support their less populated neighbors. As an example, California receives approximately 76% of what it pays into the federal government back in tangible benefits. How is that just or democratic for the 38 million plus people who call California home? The answer is that it is not.
550
OK, try to change that in Congress. The party of NO, now the party of Stupid, won't even have to fight you, they will just have to have their members follow marching orders. WIN for the party of Stupid again.
1
Well -- what happens when the rest of the county decides to not send you any water or power ?
You're advocating for state's rights? Isn't that what Southern Republicans advocate?
Dang -- bi-partisanship!!
Dang -- bi-partisanship!!
2
More sour grapes over the last election. The Constitution framers sought to protect the interests of small states in the Senate, while providing for a distribution of representation based on population in the House. Our national economy depends heavily on agricultural exports, without which, the balance of payments would be so distorted that we would be a banana republic.
Perhaps a review of the 1896 William Jennings Bryan Cross of Gold speech is in order. It spells out how a destruction of rural activities would have the effect of destroying the cities, but not vice versa.
Maybe you think that California should have 10 Senators, while States like Vermont have 1/4 of one Senator. We might as well do away with States entirely and forget about the notion of our Nation being a Union of States.
Perhaps a review of the 1896 William Jennings Bryan Cross of Gold speech is in order. It spells out how a destruction of rural activities would have the effect of destroying the cities, but not vice versa.
Maybe you think that California should have 10 Senators, while States like Vermont have 1/4 of one Senator. We might as well do away with States entirely and forget about the notion of our Nation being a Union of States.
50
Actually the compromise by the Founders was, in large part, motivated by a desire to bolster the power of the slaveholders in the South. This involved not only the undemocratic arrangement of the Senate and Electoral College, discussed in the article, but also the infamous "three fifths" rule where southern slaveholding states were allowed to count three-fifths of the black slave population in apportionment. Of course the power apportioned by that method accrued to the white slaveholders.
191
I think these arguments from a presidential loser is fraught with the same discussions about doing away with filibusters by the winning party: the equipoise is lost by the prism of politics.
Nonetheless, if we want to protect our rural economies then we need equitable immigration laws to ensure we have a labor force to help manage our agricultural products. Without legal and illegal immigration our produce will rot in the fields/trees.
Nonetheless, if we want to protect our rural economies then we need equitable immigration laws to ensure we have a labor force to help manage our agricultural products. Without legal and illegal immigration our produce will rot in the fields/trees.
8
RM, remember, there are two anti-democratic features associated with the electoral college. The first is that is overweights the power of voters from less populous (not necessarily rural) states. The second is that most states (but not all) apportion their electors as winner-take-all. So a candidate who narrowly wins Michigan or Florida takes all of their electoral votes, even if the vote in that state was basically 50/50. I think the authors of our constitution were far more skeptical of popular sentiment than we are today. It is not unreasonable to consider doing things differently (like proportionally assigning electors based on the state vote).
59
So, progress is stymied because go an antiquated, rigid structure that enables the most retrograde thinking hold control, and ensures those with a disproportionate amount of political power and wealth enact policies that works against an egalitarian nation that does the greater good. It seems a rather bleak future as it will be nearly impossible to convince rural America to vote for policy counter to their economic interest. It makes succession of Western US seem a necessity if we want to have real democracy that works for the greater good.
150
Wouldn't it be more productive to find out why it is that the entire nation of voters, from Pennsylvania to Idaho, from Montana to the Gulf Coast, is "un-American", and to develop political proposals to address the concerns of these American citizens?
26
Wouldn't it be more helpful to understand why an orchestrated attack of fake news and misinformation was continually cycled through the media against Clinton? Wouldn't it be more helpful to understand why people voted for Trump despite his non-disclosure of conflicts of interest, many business failures and calls to violence?
62
No wouldn't be more productive, because what they want--as they have demonstrated since 1787--is to use our cities as their ATMs.
What would be most productive is if the rural regions of the countries got together and created their own Normal Rockwell nation. Call it the United States of Great America, Inc.
They could grow their crops, and raise their piglets & chickens and slice off their mountain tops, and frack for their oil; and eliminate all rules that affect air or water or wildlife; and reduce taxes to the minimum (on anybody except Jews & Mormons). Hell, they could re-introduce slavery, which would cut their labor costs to next to zero. They could make Great American English their official language, and imprison anybody who didn't speak it. They could vote for what they wanted when they wanted and how they wanted (no blacks, browns, yellows need apply).
I cannot think of anything more productive, and the sooner they get started the sooner I'll send a contribution to help them along.
The rest of, us, stuck in our own mongrelish, corrupt, urbanized (rather than agrarian) economy, will simply have to negotiate with our former compatriots, as if they were citizens of another country. Personally, I can't wait.
What would be most productive is if the rural regions of the countries got together and created their own Normal Rockwell nation. Call it the United States of Great America, Inc.
They could grow their crops, and raise their piglets & chickens and slice off their mountain tops, and frack for their oil; and eliminate all rules that affect air or water or wildlife; and reduce taxes to the minimum (on anybody except Jews & Mormons). Hell, they could re-introduce slavery, which would cut their labor costs to next to zero. They could make Great American English their official language, and imprison anybody who didn't speak it. They could vote for what they wanted when they wanted and how they wanted (no blacks, browns, yellows need apply).
I cannot think of anything more productive, and the sooner they get started the sooner I'll send a contribution to help them along.
The rest of, us, stuck in our own mongrelish, corrupt, urbanized (rather than agrarian) economy, will simply have to negotiate with our former compatriots, as if they were citizens of another country. Personally, I can't wait.
4
In every aspect of our lives besides government we continuously evolve and adopt improved systems that we find work better for us. When it comes to governing, for some reason we are stuck with the idea that it cannot be improved or altered.
328
Simple to solve, difficult to implement. It would require a Constitutional Amendment. That requires 2/3 of Congress and Senate to get behind it. Other than the larger states there would be little support for it. Then if it is approved by Congress, 3/4 of the States have to affirm it. That is almost impossible because the majority of the States are rural and do not want to loose their power. remember campaigns are conducted to win a majority of electoral votes and as such candidates go to every state. A campaign based on popular vote would see the candidates only go to large States and ignore small ones.
6
An amendment could provide for direct election of the president, but Article five requires unanimous consent from the states to eliminate equal representation by states in the Senate.
3
The House has not grown since 1917. There is no constitutional cap on the size of the house.
It is simple - take Wyoming, population 580,000. Smallest state, smallest district size. Instead of 435 Members of Congress, we'd 548. California would have 65 Members of Congress, with 67 electoral votes, Wyoming would still have 3. The Electoral College would have 648 votes.
If we'd been using the same district size as in 1917, we'd have over 1,000 Members of Congress.
It does not take changing the Constitution, as all the Constitution says is that districts should not be smaller than 30,000 people if memory serves. It is about Congress doing its duty and reapportioning after the next Census.
It is simple - take Wyoming, population 580,000. Smallest state, smallest district size. Instead of 435 Members of Congress, we'd 548. California would have 65 Members of Congress, with 67 electoral votes, Wyoming would still have 3. The Electoral College would have 648 votes.
If we'd been using the same district size as in 1917, we'd have over 1,000 Members of Congress.
It does not take changing the Constitution, as all the Constitution says is that districts should not be smaller than 30,000 people if memory serves. It is about Congress doing its duty and reapportioning after the next Census.
5