Whining about the electoral college before the 2020 vote won't do anyone any good. Democratic candidates MUST cater to voters in Mich, PA, FLA and Wisc or they will lose. It's not that hard, people. No one can change the voting system this year. Play the hand you're dealt.
9
Population and geography will always be at odds in a presidential election. Nice analysis but it still comes down to a candidate needing to appeal to a broad swath of America. Barack Obama is living proof.
2
President Trump needs to take political advice from Vinod and Reed.
Right.
So if I read this article correctly, based on Trump's current levels of support he has only a 31% chance of winning the Electoral College in 2020, in other words, the election. That sounds pretty good to me.
As many have noted, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania should be the primary battlefields, and with the right combination of voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts should be winnable for the Dems, particularly a Centrist!
1
Well, this is an unbiased approach to determining how the vote might be apportioned among the candidates.
The authors state, "In our computerized model, we ran 10,000 simulated elections, inserting variations on the base assumption that general sentiment is in favor of the Democratic nominee and against President Trump."
So, assuming that the "general sentiment" favors whoever is the Democratic nominee, ... ah, beans. This isn't data science or scientific modeling. It is only run your 'model' to find the answer you expect to find.
2
None of these scenarios are anyone winning 50 per cent plus one of the vote. A person winning a plurality has 50 per cent plus one voting against him or her, as it was in 2016. I don’t think it is possible, with a statistically significant probability, to lose electoral vote if you have a true majority. If you have the biggest minority, you don’t have cause to whine about a minority taking control. The electoral college has almost always delivered a true majority. That is why Madison and the Constitution Bro’s invented it.
I'm not a data scientist, but a quick spreadsheet calculation using registered voter data and electoral college distribution per state tells me this. In a hypothetical extreme situation, any one party can win upwards of 11 million more votes than the other and still have an electoral college victory. Ofcourse this maybe be unlikely, but not impossible. In order to win the electoral college decisively in the current climate, the democratic candidate will need nearly 10 million more votes. That means atleast a 10-point advantage over Trump leading upto the polls.
1
The electoral college is the wet market of democracy. End it now, land doesn't vote, people do!
2
Actually, it isn’t land or people. States elect the POTUS.
1
The Electoral College does not work as intended. It was supposed to be a check on the popular vote in case the voters would have elected a demagogue or a would be tyrant. The fact that the electors went ahead and elected Trump despite all the evidence of his strongman attitudes and behaviors is proof of their failure. It's time to come up with something better.
8
I'm sure the Democrats would love to have California and New York decide what's best for the rest of the country, at least at this particular time in history but, I'll stick to the Constitutional Republic with its Electoral College to even out the representation across the country. Not ready for a full on Majority Dictatorship.
24
@Tommy2
And I am supposed to accept a Minority Dictatorship?
By the way-read up on the forming of the Electoral College-it's not the reason that you think.
28
What we have now is dictatorship of the minority which obviously suits those in the minority. Why not simply follow the principle of one person, one vote? Everyone can feel that their vote counts, instead of the majority feeling disenfranchised.
Why so much hostility toward your fellow Americans in California and New York?
36
@Tommy2 Are you saying that Minority Dictatorship is better?
23
First, stop it with the nonsense about the "national" vote...
California’s virtually killed off its state-level GOP – 2016 US Senate election was Dem vs Dem...
Not primary – election...
Second, if the Dems stop immolating themselves long enough to really understand the US political climate – path becomes crystal-clear…
(it actually has been, for a long while)
Hold the 2016 electoral base…
Don’t see any of those peeling off, with a credible moderate candidate…
But, run a socialist – and there’ll be 3 MAGA supporters energized, for every Bernie Bro…
Let alone the centrists…
Now, focus what would turn Florida, to start – that’d make it 277-261…
Then, descend on the rust belt with a coordinated regional/state presidential/senatorial campaign…
And here’s where it gets interesting…
Hizzoner is (correctly) emphatically against coal – and has been (correctly) derisive of CO2 sequestration…
But – do you go into Pennsylvania and Ohio, leading with your chin, aiming to ban fracking???
In a word, no…
Stay on message, on coal – and work up a message on small modular reactors…
As far as the US mining industry:
> Rare-earths – check
> Uranium – check
> Titanium and chromium and lithium (where/if you can find
them) – check
But clean up your environmental act…
What’s that – you say US-based mining for these elements is uneconomical???
But US-based CO2 sequestration is???
The Electoral College is an anti-democratic construct. Period.
Lawrence Lessig explains it all...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
1
If the minorities don’t vote, Trump will be president* again. Simple as that. No excuses.
2
Bernie Sanders wins 2 primary elections and mainstream media smears him to no ends!
Bill Weld gets 10% of the vote in NH primaries, which signals that Donald Trump has no chance in hell to win NH.
Yet the headline is a deflection from reality.
Donald Trump will lose to a dead Rat. His support among woman is 30%, his support with Blacks is 5% and other minorities the same. The numbers do not add up for him.
This paper like all mainstream media is scared of what is coming and therefore doing its best to reelect Trump. Win't happen.
2
Lets us see what happens on Nov 3, 2020. If Trump cannot continue with states like PA, MI, WI & OH again, how will he be elected again, in spite of having a good economy with 3% unemployment rate. It depends on who will be Trump's Democratic challenger. If Biden is the Democratic nominee Trump can not succeed three of these four states which helped Trump win in 2016 Election. and the real fact is that Trump never thought he will WIN in 2016.
1
How about this for a reason to change the way the Electoral College operates. Trump losses the popular vote by 10,000,000 votes but wins the election in the Electoral College!! That's an unlikely but possible outcome. Tell me that scenario doesn't give you nightmares.
1
There are four (4) major issues that these apparently partisan authors (deliberately?) left out.
1) The presidential election is effectively fifty one (51) -- including DC -- winner take all popular vote contests.
2) With all due respect to the authors, they have what appears to be A COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING on what the Electoral College does. The 2016 Presidential Election is a case in point. Secretary Clinton won CA, IL, and NY by ca. 6 million votes, POTUS Trump won the other forty seven (47) states + DC by ca. 3 million votes; a net popular victory of 3 million votes for Secretary Clinton.
3) To put it mildly, many of us in Flyover Country are appalled by the current politics, public health failures, etc. extant in CA, IL, and NY. In a system where states with huge populations would dominate, campaigning would be emphasized in these urban locations and without significant attention being paid to the vast majority of States.
4) The Electoral College acts like a tonic to mitigate the promotion of (for example): Second Amendment issues, rights to privacy (with regard to abortion, marriage, etc.) et al. In short, the Electoral College acts as a firewall allowing Red States to exist in the manner that its residents prefer; not per a possible Blue State (popular) majority foisting its views on these contentious matters (and others) on those who don't see things quite the same way.
4
Small states with almost no diversity is going to give up the power the electoral college gives them? That makes as much sense as thinking Republicans Mueller and Bolton were going to take Trump down. Thinking that Bernie endorsed by AOC and Omar In those states that have less people than a New York City in a zip code is a winner is whimsical. We should all get on the yellow brick road to see the Wizard. Wyoming has a population of a little over 700000 people why would it vote to get rid of The Electoral College?
3
Like the Electoral College or not it doesn't matter in the 9.5 months up to the most significant election since the 1850's.
Democrats need a moderate candidate that can appeal to and win over center-right and independent voters. Period full stop.
Five thousand more voters supporting a "revolution" in Brooklyn or Seattle will not equal 2 voters in Boise or Casper.
That's reality.
41
@Leonard Foonimin
Anyone who says "period full stop" does not know what they're talking about. Moderates lost the six states and the Electoral College in 2016.
But Bernie - without moderate votes - wins the Six States and the Electoral College and nationally over Trump right now, today.
That's because, instead of whining, the progressives have been out on the ground knocking on doors.
That's reality.
10
@Leonard Foonimin NO -- we need to get rid of the Electoral College, which was instituted to protect slaveholding states.
8
Actually no, it was created to get smaller states to sign on to the constitution in the first place.
Without it those states would have never agreed to join the union.
There’s a mechanism for ridding the electoral college. It’s called passing an amendment.
5
The Electoral College's brilliance is that a winner must build a broad "coalition" of states (we are the United States), thereby ensuring that candidates can't win running narrow races with policy proposals that appeal to, say, just urban inner-city residents, are therefore forced to find ways of proposing policies that appeal to rural voters as well.
3
The electoral college arguably makes sense in a nation that is a confederation of largely independent states with a limited federal government. That was the original scheme established by the Constitution. However, over the last 200+ years, with the rise of instant communications and fast transportation, the US has evolved into a single nation, in which state governments play a much smaller role. We are a single nation with regional variations rather than a loose assemblage of independent states. So, today, the rationale for the electoral college is gone, and we should eliminate it. Period.
76
@The Judge Ok. So lets go back to a smaller/limited federal government with stronger states. That is when American worked better
4
@The Judge
I'm not so sure. By all means, eliminate the electoral college. However, no amount of technology has eliminated the "big country" versus "small country" phenomenon between states.
The basic economic assumption goes like this:
Whenever a country is large in an international market, domestic trade policies can affect the world price of the good.
Well, if you consider these United States the international market and each individual state a domestic market, you'll find the assumption holds remarkably true. Some states have more geographic and economic power than other states. The less powerful states therefore compensate the imbalance politically and legally.
On a more practical level though, you're crazy if you think the Untied States is one nation. When was the last time you drove cross-country? I've been ocean-to-ocean in this rickety backwards thing we call a country more than once now. I'll tell you categorically: We are not one nation.
Forget the pledge of allegiance. There are wolves among us.
1
@The Judge
There is a clear and straight-forward path to eliminate the EC - strange that all of its critics don't explain why it has never been initiated.
Part deux - most progressive democracies have some form of vote distribution that is 'unfair'. Canada recently looked at a first past the post and rejected it - people think it is fundamentally UNFAIR,
3
the electoral college was a means to appease the southern states whose population was less than the northern states. so the founding fathers made one of their biggest mistakes by creating the electoral college and giving slaves in the south 3/5ths of human in their population even though they could not vote. they feared the population only in the vote for the president but in doing what they through would curtail that, they created what they feared. they gave the minority the right to oversee the majority, hence trump. no president in american history has won the presidency through only the electoral college with such a large loss in the popular vote. those of us who do not have the insanity of praising a bigoted, misogynistic and pathological lying narcissist to drag this country into his view of fascism will do what it takes, i hope, to vote whoever the democratic convention declares as its nominee. enough is enough.
Gosh! You should tell the Democrats right away. They probably haven't noticed this. They'd probably change their whole game plan if they knew this.
1
Thank God for the Electoral College.
3
The ten "swing states" identified in the article are actually scattered widely across the country. I doubt that voters in those 10 states have interests significantly different from the nation as a whole.
They don't but the narrow win of one party in several of these state negate the wish of majority of the country. That is the problem. The EC was not a problem while it aligned with wishes of majority. It became the problem when it diverge from the wish of majority.
Here it comes again - Trump looks like a winner and the leftist's freak out and fantasize about doing away with the electoral college. We are the United States, a collection of united states. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. Now please go away.
3
I want to believe that we are Democratic Republic where wishes of all people are respected, rather than Kleptocratic Republic that serves only to small group of citizens.
The Electoral College is going nowhere and we need to stop whining about it. The last,two Republican presidents didn’t win the popular vote.If recently we could only get one Republican to vote to impeach Trump in what planet are we living to think they will vote to get rid of the electoral college ? Let’s stop the whining and find away to get those people in those states to vote for us. Three years of whining about Trump is enough. Mobilize the vote in November and our nightmare is over.
1
The EC is always will be threat, no matter what happens this November. It is unfair system and should be fought against, as slavery was fought against.
In a reversal of Hillary's blinding, Bernie must campaign hard, that is, extra hard, in the swing states.
Most importantly, he needs to reduce the fear of socialistic programs.
Simple introductions, such as: Your Police Dept. is socialism.
Your Public Library is socialism.
Your free public K-12 system is "socialism" will hopefully introduce the rural voting public to socialism as "good" vs. the perverted image of Socialism equals "Cold War Era Soviet Communism" the GOP is proposing.
2
if you think the 2020 election will remove trump (or any republican) from office you haven't been paying attention.
2
The electoral college steals the right to vote from us and should be made illegal. One person should equal one vote.
2
Can we get enough Californians to move to Montana? Flip the senate that way.
Pick up 3 EC votes
Can we get enough Massachusettites/Massachusettsans/Massachusettsians to move to Maine? Secure the senate that way. Send Collins packing.
Pick up 4 EC votes
Also on the list of low population red states to move to and flip: Wyoming, N&S Dakota.
It's a big sacrifice, but it could save the republic.
2
This article merely strengthen my belief that we need to replace the Electoral College with a more democratic method of electing the president. Laws could be passed at the state level immediately which could apportion electors or to award all electors to the winner of the popular vote. We don't need a Constitutional amendment although that would be more permanent. It's the 21st century, it's about time we stopped living by 18th century rules. And while we are at it, we should also abolish the Senate. Senators representing only a small fraction of the population should not be controlling our government.
1
While interesting, this article does not effectively drive home its point. A more effective way to make the point is to look at a boundary condition. For example, if every eligible voter in the west coast states (CA, OR, WA) and the northeast (NY, CT, RI, MA, NH, ME, VT, PA) voted for one candidate, the another candidate could still win the Electoral college by winning a plurality of votes in the less populated states in the Midwest and South. Therefore, a candidate could lose the the popular vote by tens of millions of votes, (say they get 40+% of the electorate) and yet still become president.
A system that allows such distorted results, not matter how low the probability of such a result, will produce more distorted results of a lesser magnitude as more elections are held, which will lead to more and more of the public viewing the winning candidate as illegitimate.
A democracy cannot endure under such a system.
2
Trump is going to win; he has been campaigning from day one and day two he had already filed for his bid for reelection. The Democrats act as though this is some righteous fight, but they can’t achieve cohesion amongst themselves. Unfortunately, Trump will win, the Democrats will lose, and we the people will have to put up with another four years of Trump. Middle America loves their guns, they don’t see a need for government healthcare, but do receive an outsized share of government benefits and appropriations. The heartland (middle America) is large and the democrats don’t see the forest for the trees. Individuals like AOC need to grow up and realize that Queens is not the center of the universe and for that matter neither is NYC. Those ideals don’t transmit to the heartland of the USA. Using alternative facts to target the base has worked. These are the masses that watch TV incessantly, believe that everything is working just fine if they are told that coal is coming back, manufacturing jobs are plentiful, and the country is doing great they believe it… The TV says so…. The phone call was perfect, there is no collusion, and Russia didn’t help Trump get elected. If you believe this, I personally know a bridge that is for sale in NYC.
1
Why should any Republican candidate waste time and money campaigning in states like CA, IL, NY, NJ, MA, DE, CT, RI, HI, OR and maybe a few more. Only the electoral votes count so go for them. There are certain states a Republican simply cannot win.
Every four years we go through this same drill: the losers complaining about the Electoral College. Meanwhile we exhaust our civic energies with two year long campaign seasons. It is time to face up to the fact that the system is an outmoded insanity that persistently produces the equivalent of minority governments. We should scrap the presidential system and move to a Parliamentary style democracy such as exists in Britain, Germany, Canada, Australia.
1
Here it is again.
Maybe try running candidates that aren’t horrible like HRC. The electoral college is a superior approach to the popular vote. The popular vote means NY and CA decide every election. No doubt the NYT would like that. You could achieve the same result by saying only land and stock holders get to vote, or only the managerial class on the coasts can vote.
The electoral college is a feature, not a bug, of the US Constitution.
2
A democracy can not survive when the majority of voters is not represented.
Vote for the DEMS in 2020.
Don’t eliminate the electoral college as it is too difficult.
Here is a plan.
After the 2020 census (with DEM, president & DEM majority in both houses of congress, when redistricting, increase the number of house representatives to 598.
That can fix the electoral college AND it can improve the ability of house representatives to govern.
Our country's government is not, nor ever was, a representative democracy. It is a republic. The authors opine that a majority should count for everything, but there are very few instances in our federal government where that is true. For instance, bills can be buried in sub-committee, some Congressional votes require two-thirds majority to pass, and federal judges' "unpopular" rulings affect millions of lives with much recourse. Like the House of Representatives structure, the Electoral College is fair in that its members are apportioned according to population. Sure, Wyoming voters may be more "powerful" than California voters, but aren't Wyoming's two Senators already surely more powerful than California's two Senators? If you dislike the Electoral College, you must really hate each time the Senate must consider a bill put forth by the "fairer" House. The federal three-branch system was brilliantly designed to prevent a rampaging majority of any political stripe. The rules of Congress slow down legislation for this purpose, especially in cases where there might be one-party control of the legislative and executive branches. Alternatively, the party now complaining of the burden of the Electoral system might be better served by appealing to those in the "deplorable" states by putting forth policies that appeal to those voters.
1
Pretty simple. The Democratic party has to run a candidate and policy platform that appeals to swing states. If not they will lose. Complaining about the popular vote is a waste of time. The current Dem front runners will NOT win the swing states. Their polices are not supported. This is the reality. Most independants agree with this POV.
5
It is worth noting that candidate Clinton was terribly flawed and seemed to be disproportionately flawed in the pivotal Great Lakes states.
This time, however, there is a leading candidate with great appeal in the pivotal region of the country: Senator Amy Klobuchar. Perhaps like Trump's criminal plot in Ukraine, this truth will also float to the surface despite the efforts of many with questionable motives. She is not only appealing to the median electoral college voter, she is somewhere near what people expect the median age to be for a new president.
3
I like the idea that mob rule is nullified by the Electoral College.
What really needs to happen is to have more political parties so they would be forced to work together to achieve legislation.
2
@Randy L.
We’d need to scrap the Constitution and move to a parliamentary system to enable multiple parties.
Our system doesn’t support more than a 2 party system.
2
@TheraP Actually, a few independent politicians will take votes from the parties.
That’ll change the game in a dramatic way.
@Randy L.
It’s been tried. Never works here. Minority parties can’t win seats. Ok, there’s the occasional person like Bernie Sanders. But it does mot change the game one bit.
You’re in Belgium. I’d prefer Denmark or Norway if I were younger and had a way to live there.
Do some reading. Experts helping nations to become democratic have them write constitutions which guarantee parliamentary rule.
1
It's not a given that Trump has any distinct advantage with the Electoral College or a Republican for that matter. The problem is the winner-take-all rule. He can win a state like Pennsylvania by less than one percent of the vote and claim all of its electoral college votes. That's not how the founding fathers intended the Electoral College to work. The Constitution leaves it up to the states to determine how EC votes will be apportioned. The winner-take-all rule was around in the early 19th century in some strates. But didn't gain currency until after the Civil War and was used to keep the power to elect the president in the hands of state legislatures. It became widespread during the Jim Crow era as a way to suppress newly franchised voters, including migrants and African Americans. That legacy continues to this day when a candidate can lose by 3 million popular votes yet still win the election. The good news is a simple act of Congress can overturn the rule; it doesn't take a constitutional amendment. States can also make the change as many already have. Now is the time to focus debate on fixing this problem once and for all before the next election.
1
Like his federal socialist vote winning bailout to the farmers hurting from retaliatory tariffs, Trump is likely to throw yet more federal taxpayer dollars to bribe a few critical states to aid his reelection campaign. This bailout however is not likely to be paid back so the rest of the country will have to eat the cost.
1
@Justvisitingthisplanet
As opposed to student loan forgiveness, free healthcare, free phones, amnesty for people in the country illegally, free this and free that...
Who eats those costs as the Dems try to bribe their votes for election?
Politicians have been trying to buy votes since voting began.
1
A solid majority of Americans say they are better off than they were three years ago, a factor that could help boost President Trump’s re-election bid, a new Gallup poll released Wednesday reveals.
4
Trump has converted the federal government into Trump Inc, where he and his cronies plunder the Treasury for their own gain. Dems may not defeat Trump in an impeachment trial or election, so vote with your wallet instead. Don't spend a dollar on businesses that support him and his policies.
1
Cut to the chase and stay there. 2020 will come down to PA, MI and WI. Focus! Win those 3 states and hold all the others that Hillary Clinton won in 2016. Again, focus!!!!!
3
@C.L.S.
Easier said than done.
I’m in one of those states. And the demographics are very likely already graven in stone here.
1
How do we get free from this idiotic Electoral College system?
3
Look, I know everyone is busy and you don't have time to read de Tocqueville's "Democracy in America." But if you really want to understand why we have an electoral college, then at least spend 51 minutes listening to this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09vyw0x
If you want America to be governed by politicians selected by the people living only in California and New York, then get rid of the electoral college.
5
@math365 As someone living in the second-most populous state in the Union (Texas), I'm not convinced that only left-leaning states count in the popular vote.
2
@math365 Bless you, but you might as well talk to a brick wall than try to educate the base.
Your comment illustrates several logical fallacies. First, you assume that every state is a monolithic voting bloc with its own state interests. This may have been true during slavery, but today voters tend to divide along different lines—urban v rural, wealthy v middle class, young v old, etc.
Millions of voters are disenfranchised in every state in the union. Democrats are disenfranchised in Mississippi and Idaho. Republicans are disenfranchised in Illinois and Oregon. The popular vote would eliminate these artificial regional distinctions and count EVERY vote.
That means that voters would decide elections, not states.
The Dems and the Times are beginning to realize Trump will be re-elected.
6
For all of Democrats' agony about the electoral college, the 2016 math provides some very hopeful signs for 2020.
As we've all memorized by now: Clinton won the popular vote by almost 4 million votes, while 75 electoral ballots (more than enough to swing the contest) came from 4 states (MI, FL, WI, and PA) decided by a combined 225,000 votes.
To hear Democrats talk, those numbers tell a woeful tale of geographic essentialism. But what they really demonstrate is that Democrats aren't distributed evenly enough. All it would take to flip those four states--each of which contain thriving liberal metropolitan areas--would be for enough "surplus" Democrats to move to them.
In today's world, where people work remotely and spend most of their time online, such a migration should be easy to accomplish and there is evidence that the horror of Trump's presidency has organically inspired it. In Wisconsin and Michigan, Democrats have retaken governorships from Republicans, and Pennsylvania reelected its Democratic governor. (In Florida, Republican Ron DeSantis won a squeaker in 2018.) According to Business Insider, over half a million people have moved out of deep blue states (including New York, California, and Massachusetts) since 2016. I don't know where they all went, but if they ended up in the right places, and stay there, not only would the sad chapter of Trump end, but Democrats could consolidate their strength for generations.
3
@Ben Weis
If you get retired Dems to make the move, you’d get a group that reliably votes.
But it’s hard for seniors to make such a move.
Perhaps Bloomberg could sponsor them?
1
It would definitely take a lot of coordination, and stealth, to accomplish, but with the right approach (and yes, even if that means literally paying people to relocate), moving a couple hundred thousand people to Philadelphia, greater Detroit, Milwaukee/Madison, and Miami is a lot easier than amending the constitution, or lucking into a candidate who can sway voters to switch sides. I'm probably being naive, but I'm hoping the DNC has been on this, and coordinating with its big donors to make it happen.
Bemoan the Electoral College all you want, it is never going to change as you need 75% of the states to ratify its elimination.
Why would smaller states allow NY, CA, TX and FL to decide a national election? Frankly, different geographic areas will likely have a number of items which they find important from a regional perspective. Outside of healthcare (not enough) and taxes (too high) what concerns does a voter in Kansas have in common with one from New Jersey?
If the Democratic candidate is not a moderate, the election is already lost.
3
Somebody better head to Michigan and Wisconsin and start slinging beef hash at senior centers and manning the fish fry station at the local rotary clubs. Hillary refused to do this and look what happened as a result!
1
@Aaron @Aaron You seem to forget that Hillary, in fact, did not visit Wisconsin in '16.
Of course she did. She just didn’t visit in the crucial last two months.
I have enough !
We have 2 Senators per state putting Iowa on the same level as California....okay that's to balance things out. We don't need any other "correction" system. Let's count the votes and elect as President who the majority of Americans want.
Look at the rest of the world, our system is simply put.....crazy !!!
3
Torturing the data until it confesses your socially preferred outcome is orthogonal to reality.
3
Yeah, but did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Trump wouldn’t have this electoral walk-away if the Democrats had a better candidate, but the young people want to win the idealistic war.
“Youth is wasted on the young” belongs to Shaw but W.C. Fields gave it legs. History also tells of the wasteful futility of the Children’s Crusades in the 11th Century.
More recently we have the youthful zeal behind the failed candidacies of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern. At each youthful failure, the winning opposition became more despotic. Now the young push for Bernie Sanders in the face of the worst despot of them all and Bernie will win then lose.
There is the usual bromide, “… but Bernie’s a nice man…” I don’t even think Bernie’s nice. He knows that the ambiguity of “Democratic Socialism--is the same frightening play on words as was National Socialism; and that ain’t nice.
Trump took a 60/40 gamble on toppling Joe Biden, his gamble paid off and still the young people don’t see that they’ve been bamboozled by a master Imp.
Another wise saying that in Democracies, people get the government they deserve.
So our fate needn’t be projected by an election model, it isn’t mathematical; we're just being stupid.
2
And so much for The American People voting him out of office, as the lily-livered Republicans assured the public throughout the impeachment trial.
Donald Trump is a fascist tyrant. Fascist tyrants do not want a free press, an honest justice system or for the citizenry to be allowed to voice dissent.
No American who believes in democracy, our three equal branches of government and equality before the law would vote for Donald Trump. If you are a Trump supporter, you need to understand that you are supporting fascism. The MAGA show everyone daily why they are indeed deplorable. Congressional Republicans are complicit and must be voted out of office in 2020.
It's really as simple as that.
4
More like we Democrats seem in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
1
If the Dems know this why are they killing themselves in a circular firing squad? Bernie endorsed by the Gang of Four is going to fly in those states we need? Communist and Socialist mean the same thing in those states required to beatTrump. This is going to fly like Gender neutral bathrooms did in 2016. National polls mean nothing just ask Joe Biden. The polls told us in 2016 Hillary was walk on home run.
2
Trump is a Fascist - Even if he loses the electoral college and the popular vote, there is a very good chance he will not concede. Republicans will back him up, and we will descend further into authoritarianism.
3
You don't win a football game by having possession of the ball for more time than the other team. You need to score more points. In Presidential elections, you win by getting electoral votes. Trump is not campaigning to get the most popular votes. He is seeking the win by getting electoral votes. Many Trump supporters don't even bother to vote in NY and California because they know he has not chance to win. If popular vote counted, they would vote.
3
Much of the recent disparity between the electoral and popular outcome is probably due to California, by far our largest state and one of the most lopsided in favoring Democrats. I do not see how that disparity can be lessened in the short run. The long-term hope is that Texas, the second largest state, becomes competitive. Even with our current electoral and popular disparity, Democrats must choose an energetic and centrist Presidential candidate to win diverse Northern states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania or otherwise lose to Trump.
2
I've grown tired of these types of arguments. There are flaws in the current system as there would be flaws in any replacement. Many of these flaws were evident to the founders. I would love to see candidates campaign throughout the country. But there really isn't a system under which that would happen. If we emphasized the popular vote, candidates would simplify their campaign and travel plans, catering primarily to densely populated areas, most likely the metropolitan areas on the coasts. Yeah, we may see a presidential candidate caring about New York but they sure wouldn't worry much about upstate. And there are entire regions of the country that they wouldn't even think about.
There is no right answer here. Trump managed to play the system perfectly in 2016 but the rules were clear and, in hindsight, there's evidence that Clinton could have campaigned differently and won that election. The best solution here is to minimize the scope and power of the President (Congress, do your job) as well as the Federal Government.
3
Perhaps retention of the Electoral College is viewed by the leaders and residents of many (if not most) of the states as essential to the preservation of the American republic. Perhaps they view the direct election of the president as a threat to that republic. And perhaps they view the abstract notion of democracy that generates an idea such as the direct election of a president as a fantasy for small children.
Are the residents of these states wrong?
And who is to judge?
By what standard?
Are the residents of these states foolish, ignorant, overly emotional, uneducated, or simply "deplorables"?
Again, who is to judge and by what standard?
Do the residents of these states not possess the right to exercise their judgment (individually and collectively) in a manner that suits them?
1
We can certainly judge those who don’t understand that our republic is a democracy because they’ve accepted the falsehood that a republic is something distinct. I’m amazed that in 2020 every American doesn’t understand that this is a democracy.
We can also judge them for not knowing the difference between a direct democracy and a representative democracy. In a direct democracy, citizens vote on laws. In a direct democracy, citizens vote for representatives (such as presidents) to pass legislation.
But I do think that a general ignorance about our history is a genuine threat to our democracy. Now we have the specter of citizens voting against democracy to preserve a republic!!—with no sense of irony whatsoever.
Silly.
The rules are there is an electoral college.
Design your campaign to win the electoral college.
Simple.
Don't sit there and say, I gained 700 yards in football to their 300 yards, the final score was 12-22, but I should win.
You know what the rules are, campaign accordingly.
4
The result of the electoral college - a ruling minority that further manipulates the system to retain power - looks a lot like apartheid.
1
The solution is that every state should pass the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The Bill has been enacted into law in 16 jurisdictions with 196 electoral votes (CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT, WA). It needs to be enacted by states with an additional 74 electoral votes.
Interestingly, I have never heard a Democratic candidate mention the Bill's existence.
Email your legislators and ask them to pass the National Popular Vote bill:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/write?cc=US27
1
Yes, a candidate could carry 49 states and decisively lose the popular vote because a net nine million Californians voted to legalize heroin and ban all immigration enforcement. So what?
Thank goodness the founding fathers had enough genius to foresee that there might be a regional pocket of lunacy in America some day.
4
We cannot have the President elected by the millions of people packed into our big dirty cites.
Most of them have no idea about why and who they are voting for.
If they did, Liberals would not want to abolish the electoral college.
Talk about " voting against self interest ".
That is it.
After all Democrats have been running these cities forever and almost every city it full of crime, poverty, bad schools, and all.
Who wants that?
Not !
4
Also, there’s plenty of crime and poverty in rural areas too...
1
Joe, travel more and discover your country’s lively, diverse, exciting cities. I like rural areas too, but some urbanites might dismiss them as dull and boring. We have things to learn from our fellow Americans no matter where we live.
This sounds very close to the stereotype of ignorant inner-city blacks. I think these stereotypes motivate a lot of voter suppression.
Scratch the surface, and racial bias is still at the center of everything in America.
Yes, Donald Trump may win again. But the impeachment and "acquittal" has very little to do with that outcome.
The electoral college math favors his reelection as it did in 2016. In 2016, very few thought he would win. But now, most think and fear that this could well be a likely outcome. Which makes the democrats and some "Never-Trumpers" work in overdrive to prevent that happen. And that would help but whether it would materialize is now uncertain.
In 2016, the Green Party candidate, Jill Stein actually may have been a critical factor as Ralph Nader was in 2000. Furthermore, a sizable number of Sanders voters voted for Trump. They hated Hillary Clinton, but not without reason.
Similarly, the Sanders candidacy may well be a decisive factor.
And Bernie Sanders, the quintessential "democratic socialist" may again cause the election of the most undemocratic, heartless capitalist, a stooge of "American oligarchs." Communists used to call such people "useful idiots."
2
No liberal third party candidates.
1
OMG, the Electoral College, which has been with us from the moment or our birth as a nation, could do it again.! Yes, actually elect the President as provided by the Constitution. We are a republic of equal states. That's how we got our name. Remember the Great Compromise from 10th grade Civics? The constant use of the phrase 'our democracy' signals two things: a progressive viewpoint and an ignorance of our history. Our Founders were not enchanted with 'democracy' having been acquainted with the short lives of polities ruled by simply counting heads. Pure democracy is an ideology not a practical way to run a large multicultural continent spanning nation.
Of course, the Constitution contains a process for amendment. All you need is 75% of the States to vote to shed their equality in the Senate. Run that one by Wyoming, Rhode Island and Delaware.
You’re confusing representative democracy with direct democracy. Of course the framers didn’t set up a direct democracy because it would be a logistical impossibility. The authors are talking about a representative democracy—the kind we all learned about in 10th grade civics. Every democracy on earth is a representative democracy.
If the framers didn’t intend to create a democracy, why would they have called their creation a democracy?
The Electoral College is here to stay. To change it would require a constitutional amendment which would not be approved by enough states to take effect--the other alternative is revolution. All candidates for president should fashion their campaigns with the Electoral College in mind, complaining about it useless. Learn the rules, play by the rules, don't be a sore loser.
1
For starters, the Democrats need to win the senate.
Please don't give Trump and the Republicans any ideas on how to win -- we the people and the country won't survive 4 more years of them!
What point are the writers trying to make? The electoral college exists for a fascinating reason: the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. As a Yale trained attorney (a 'cult of the 14th Amendment school with a registrar'), Mr. Hundt surely understands the framer's intentions, and wisdom. Since only urban, concentrated, and significantly unregistered, illegal or unqualified voters can electorally weight his ideological agenda, he seeks, rather than understanding and framing policy with regard to the entirety of the country, to instead undermine it; run it over, and ignore it. He reminds me of Harvard Law's Larry Tribe or UChicago Law's Tom Ginsburg: they all share an agenda of reserving a congressional "golden share" in public elections, and thereby, among other mechanisms, idling the US constitution. They are urbane academics hiding a radical legal agenda. Call it a "neo-Bolshevism."
3
What we need is a grass roots effort so it becomes a mandate nationally.
Bloomberg/Klobuchar 2020!!
Electoral College.
Its name is as haughty as its purpose.
1
At least the Democrats with no policy & just urban politically correct & anti Right bad guys, are in opposition. Here, "they" are the prime minister of Canada.
There’s the suggestion that the “ignored” states can change things by tying their electors to the results of the national popular vote. “ They can adopt various measures that link their own appointment of electors to the national vote. By doing so, they can encourage candidates to compete for every vote in every state.”
But why would a state do that if it would mean that they might give votes to the other party? Eg, with Texas, a Republican ignored state, this might improve results for the Democrats, and vice versa with California.
What may be a better suggestion, although I really don’t know, is instead of winner take all, the electors are apportioned according to the state’s popular voting results. That would seem to reflect the national popular voting results.
A few brief thoughts.
1. Americans do not vote. Just around half bother to cast a ballot in Presidential years.
2. Why is it plausible to think that coercing, cajoling, bribing, pleading with those folks who sit it out ,will produce different results?
1
Win the Senate and the Presidency will not matter much. One man did not cause the mess, but one party did.
I have never seen a party making this many excuses about losing an election a full seven months before that election has even taken place. And this while you prevaricate about a clearly airtight estimation that he only has a 31% chance of winning.
Trump doesn't need the popular vote. He claimed that Hillary won the popular vote only because 3 million illegals voted for her. If he loses the 2020 popular vote by 5 million votes, he can say that the illegals turned out en masse to vote for his opponent. Even if Trump loses in the Electoral College, isn't it likely he will complain of irregularities, threaten law suits, and get Bill Barr to do some mischief? How many Republican Congressmen will demand that Trump respect the election results and not contest them? I mean, how many Senators who are not from Utah?
This article criticizes the electoral college system of electing a president. To quote,
"The system rewards...focusing on a handful of states, located mostly in the Great Lakes region, with policies, promises and programs that may not resonate or even be consistent with the interests of all Americans."
That might be true. But in some sense it is irrelevant. Trump is such a terrible president, that Democrats would be sure to win if they didn't keep shooting themselves in the foot.
The problem is that Democrats have shifted ever further to the left, leaving moderates behind. Let me give some examples.
Democrats rightly fought for gay rights. But they have gone too far. Activists have prevented Franklin Graham from speaking about Christianity because he believes that "homosexuality is a sin." They regard it as "bigotry."
But among fundamentalist Christians the source of truth is the Bible and its writings do state that homosexuality is a sin, in so many words. So calling Graham a bigot needlessly antagonizes the religious right. To what end exactly?
Or take feminism. Democrats had every right to vote no on his confirmation because of his views on abortion, but did they have a right to a public shaming of Kavanaugh for an accusation of "attempted rape" that might not have happened 35 years ago in high school?
Yes Trump is terrible, and would have fallen of his own accord in former times. But Democrats elect Trump by making themselves appear even more vindictive.
2
While this article provides excellents facts, figures, and observations, the Democrats first need to field a candidate who can win the presidency. I personally believe that person is Michael Bloomberg for a variety of reasons. And, Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris for V.P.
Then, they can work out their strategy for winning the election for President. I hate to even consider Trump for a second term, although I find enough supporters of Trump to realize this is going to be a very difficult race, electoral college or not. And, the fact that The Republican Party has been totally corrupted by greed, money, power, and foreign influence makes the challenge more daunting. It's coming down to Democracy vs Autocracy (Fascism).
There is no chance of amending the Constitution to abolish the EC --- why should the states that it gives advantage to ecen consider it? There is no chance to amend the Constitution so that senators representing a significant minority of the population get outsized power of legislation (and impeachment --- e.g. Wyoming and California get 2 senators each, making each Wyoming residents vote about 40x more weight than any Californian). There is a good chance that with as little as 42% of the popular vote trump could be re-elected --- to rule like a deranged George III for the benefit of his cult followers and to the serious damage of everyone else. Should that happen we in the relatively sane part of the land should consider seriously the same actions that our predecessors took against the original Mad KIng. I mean secession and the formation of two or three separate countries (or amalgamation with Canada, if they will have us) and let the trumpites take their bigotry and spitefulness back to the 16th century. I used to joke about this, but I am not joking now. of course, the Constitution, written and unwritten makes this impossible --- but it is a dead document anyway, so why not?
The Democrats have done more for Trump than anyone. They have supported nearly all of Trumps major bills- budgets, defense appropriations, trade deals. Nancy Pelosi even agreed to include money for Trump’s border wall in the recent $738 billion military appropriation. From the very outset, it was clear that Senate Democrats were never going to pick up the additional 20 votes to obtain the required 2/3 majority (i.e., 67) to impeach Trump. A much wiser approach would have been to Censure Trump, which would have made their point and likely picked up some Republican votes as well. If anything, Trump’s acquittal has made him an even more formidable opponent in November. If Democrats would have functioned more as an opposition party, focusing on issues directly affecting the average American family- lack of jobs paying a livable wage, high costs for housing, healthcare, childcare, education, rather than on Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment, they would be in a far stronger position. As pointed out by Jack Rasmus, Trump’s SOTU address was full of obfuscations and distortions. See- Trump’s ‘Red Meat’ SOTU Speech: US Political Crisis Now Deepens by Jack Rasmus Feb 6, 2020; Link: www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/06/trumps-red-meat-sotu-speech-us-political-crisis-now-deepens
1
You folks are doing everything in your power to ensure that Trump will, indeed, win the popular vote in November. Please continue.
2
We can never really say who won the popular vote, since the federal government doesn’t oversee state elections. That’s why we have the Electoral College system. Without it, we would end up like Venezuela, where there is no consensus on who the legitimate president is.
1
Great analysis but depressing.
One quibble, I object to using the term government paid health care or reference to health care paid by government. It's taxpayers that pay for some health care now, and it is taxpayers that will be asked to pay for more, if not all healthcare under some to the proposed plans. Referring to government as the payor does not accurately describe who will actually be paying.
1
You probably already knew that most of the conservative states have the lowest minimum wages in the county ($7.25/hr):
PA, VA, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, TX, OK, KS, IA, WI, WY, UT, ID
Source:
"Minimum wage increases in 2020"
https://ballotpedia.org/Minimum_wage_increases_in_2020
Paul Krugman often reminds us that the triumph of the Republican right over the past generation has been to convince large numbers of white, high school educated, blue collar workers – many living in the South and Midwest - to vote against their own best economic interests.
That's quite an achievement.
There's a very good chance Trump will carry all of these states in 2020.
Been to the South lately?
"The past isn't dead. It isn't even past."
- William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun, (1951)
Cheers
1
This is so discouraging. I'd like to see the country go to a popular vote for the presidency, but since that is unlikely to happen in my lifetime, the next best thing is to work to enfranchise every possible voter and then get them to the polls. In many states, ex-cons can register to vote once they finish their sentences, including parole or probation, but they often don't know this, even after decades without arrests. Rural folks also have problems getting to the polls and registering, especially if they do not have a driver's license (at least in my state). It's time to GOTV to defeat Trump.
Imagine an America without Republicans. No guns on the street, no wasteful wars, universal healthcare, universal education, income equality, no gerrymandering, no collusion with foreign powers to undermine elections, climate change being addressed... what's so bad about that?
3
President Trump constantly demonstrates that he doesn’t follow the Queensbury Rules of politics. He makes his rules as he goes leaving his logical adversaries in a fog of frustration and anger. So this model to predict the unpredictable is futile. Rather than using linear logic the authors should explore the mathematics of Bayes’s Theorem, Chaos Theory as well as a little quantum physics. As a force, Trump understands the reasons behind the classical probabilities, he knows that the unpredictable operates within bounds and that he can occupy may different spaces at the same time. Trump operates in an n dimensional space and to predict his behavior using Aristotllian
Given its unbelievable capacity to divide this country, why can we not leave the "electoral" college in place, but neutralize its power if the popular vote exceeds a certain number? As I recall, HRC garnered almost 3 million more popular votes and still lost. That may by the magic number, I don't know. But if we go much higher, to four or five or six million votes (is that even possible), the electoral college should give way to the majority. The modern era cannot forever tolerate an anachronistic system designed to placate several states so they would join the union.
Republicans have consciously worked for many decades to court the states that are overrepresented in the electoral college, such as AK, WY, etc. They also worked to gain support in states with less costly media markets and in many of those states, they have completely bought out and control the radio and tv outlets. Finally, they have conducted workshops -- which they once allowed C-Span to broadcast -- on how to anger and alienate voters at large so that overall turnout is driven down. By driving down turnout and carpet bombing their supporters with alarming propaganda, they have achieved a grand strategy for winning. It does not always succeed, but it certainly has never involved building a consensus agenda. Rather, it is a network designed to sell an agenda by and for the right wing insider elites who manipulate Republican voters to support the agenda that largely benefit the top 1%.
I've been saying it since Dubya stole the election in 2000 - time to get rid of the archaic Electoral College and put in its place a true democracy where every vote counts, regardless of where it is cast.
Democrats need to stop complaining about the electoral college and start making policy that appeals beyond the metropolitan areas. That means looking at free trade with low wage countries, taxing capital income effectively with rates that are equal or higher than the lower brackets, working on social mobility starting with education, etc.
The electoral college works exactly as intended: a president can only win with enough support in the heartland.
70
@Frederic - "The electoral college works exactly as intended: a president can only win with enough support in the heartland."
As intended? There was no heartland when the Constitution was written. How could it be intended to support it?
245
@Marie Actually, there WAS a "heartland" when the Constitution was written since at the time we still more resembled the 'nation of farmers' that Jefferson (the Hypocrite) wished us to be...
14
@Frederic In any truly fair electoral system designed for a modern democracy, what you say is simply and utterly false. Major nations with populations as huge as ours desperately need some kind of governing consensus merely to retain the credibility of their own populations, let alone to govern successfully. We are entering a long-term and insoluble political crisis, unless we dissolve the electoral college. Beyond that, the electoral college not only depresses turnout in states it makes non-competitive but insures their non-competitive character without incentives for a "minority" to organize locally for national and accordingly local elections. It is amazing that the Republican Party which stresses competition in economics is too cowardly or intellectually debased to compete politically among the whole American people, as this President surely is.
47
The key to defeating Trump for re-election is to get out the (Democratic) vote in these key states, fight voter purges in states controlled by Republicans, have an army of lawyers at the polls to counter Republican "challenges" and intimidation, and maintain vigilance over electronic voting systems that can be manipulated by bad actors. Obviously a lot of work for thousands of people, but necessary to insure our future.
Exactly - and guess who cannot win the essential swing states? Bernie Sanders. Mayor Pete has a slim chance. Biden had a great chance, but people feel he is tarnished (score one for Trump - mission accomplished).
So, maybe Bloomberg (but - guns and left wing liberals who won't vote for him). This all looks awful, but at this point I see the only path is Bloomberg with either Klobuchar or Abrams or some other winning VP.
1
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, whereby states commit their electoral votes to the popular vote winner, would result in an even lower voter turnout in my opinion. Voters would realize that not only are they not voting for a president but for electors, but that those electors could well switch their votes to the opposite candidate when they vote.
Instead, having states allocate their votes based on the winner of each Congressional district, with the two votes allocated because of the Senatorial representation going to the statewide winner, would increase turnout because a voter in states like New York, where the statewide winner is almost certain, would not feel that their vote was meaningless.
It would also force candidates to campaign in states where they currently do not bother, as the outcome is certain under the current system. Maine and Nebraska currently use this system, and it seems more fair to me at least as the voters outside of the big cities have some say in the election.
@michaelscody
The Constitution allows each state to decide how to allocate its electoral votes.
One state cannot tell another how to do it.
@Ian I quite agree. This is simply my opinion of two possibilities for the individual states to adopt.
The Electoral College has, since the dawn of the 21st Century, twice given us Presidents who did not win the popular vote, and went on to pursue polices that deeply divided the nation, and cost us dearly. In the case of George W. Bush, it was the folly of Nation Building and the Iraq War. With Trump, it's White Nationalism, othering of Immigrants, and the destruction of a functioning Federal Government not beholden to a virtual dictator, as well as Trade Wars and shredding of Alliances. It should be abundantly clear that a system which creates tyranny of a minority Party, and of a small bloc of states, cannot continue. The Popular Vote must override the Electoral College.
225
The popular vote itself is critically flawed.. more so even than the electoral college.. when first past the post means that similar popular candidates get edged out by fringy extremists. It’s why trump got the republican nomination and why sanders got a plurality being sold as a “win” in nh. Do not forget also that in both Clinton v dole v Perot and Bush v gore v numerous small candidates, the third parties in effect plausibly changed the outcome
The electoral college is arguably a “feature, not a bug”. First past the post is unquestionably a massive “bug” through which our democracy has been effectively stripped from us. It’s time to fix “first past the post” first and the rest will fall into place via things like the national popular vote compact.
6
@Jasmine Armstrong
Meh. Unconvincing. We are a nation of States, each with unique challenges and needs. Hence, the Electoral College preserves the rights of all States. It's imperfect, but it is rooted in sound logic. By your logic people in Wyoming or North Dakota would have zero incentive to vote because they would be drowned out by the density of the coastal populations. That's not an outcome that is obviously better than what we've got.
14
@John Well said. And consistent with the ideals of the framers of the Constitution. People seem not to understand the United States if actually a federation of sovereign states and the EC helps ensure the concerns of the various states are addressed vs the concerns of only the most populous ten or twelve states.
I blame this lack of understanding on the lack of quality in our education system.
6
The argument I always hear from supporters of the electoral college are that rural voters would be ignored by candidates in favor of urban voters. But this article makes the point I tend to make: Is that better than our current system, which leads candidates to focus on a small number of voters in swing states at the exclusion of the rest of us? I live in Washington-I already know who will win this state, so while I still plan to vote, in practical terms, my vote really doesn't matter. If I lived in Ohio, it would matter. But good luck changing this system: no state with outsized power will give that up willingly. The Senate suffers from the same problem. The framers were concerned by the tyranny of the majority, but the real challenge we face as a nation is the tyranny of the minority.
1
our nation is a union of 50 states. the constitution set up in the 1700s specifies how things are done. It can be changed, but it is hard to do. There is nothing in it about elections being determined by the numbers voting. In 1800 its hard imagine doing that. Even today with all the errors its hard to see how it would be done.
If all states wanted to do proportional splits they could (but I think you have to determine how to split an elector). My guess is that it's a no go.
The reason we have the current system is that the smaller states refused to join the union unless the current system was accepted- they felt they would have no say because the big states would dominate. ( I think that sometimes we forget that Trump also won 6 of the top ten states- not just the tiny ones.)
So who ever is running needs a platform that is attractive across the board and generates that support.
What democrats (and I am one) need to understand is that in many of the states that turned trump, it was enough people who voted for Obama changed to Trump because of the candidates running. (And I think because her campaign pushed the concept she was the inevitable choice so many did not bother to vote,)
So now the Fox is in the hen house and no one knows how to get him out except the old fashion way - a candidate and campaign who can win the normal states and get back the ones lost
1
Kill me now
If there was ever a case for more polarization in the United States this is it...you can only govern a country so long where the minority of the population governs the majority before a backlash develops, it has happened many times before in other countries with disastrous results. You may say can’t happen here well it can happen because you have the perfect President to play on the differences the minority and majority for his benefit...and he has and he will.
1
Democrats, whether moderate or ultra-liberal, should consider relocating away from the coasts and into purple and red states. Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Florida and the Great Lakes regions could all be flipped to blue with strong turnout and an infusion of young, left-leaning voters. Millions of votes in California and New York could be of significant value elsewhere.
3
@BPerkins
Uh, probably not real practical... or even physically possible between now and November... surely, you can come up with a better idea... thanks, though.
if they run bernie sanders trump will likely when the popular vote by a good 40 to 50 million..
3
The popular vote is the purest form of democracy. It is the most representative of the public will. The Electoral College is a contrivance. It should be gone.
1
@JD We don't have a pure democracy. Never did. Why do people keep thinking this ?
In NH yesterday in a field of two he had 128,000 votes for 85%; in 2016 he had 100,000 votes for 35%.....he lost the popular vote by 2.8 million in 2016....don't see how he makes any gains in the popular voting at all in 2020, but actually loosing votes due to his agenda and political tactics where his only support is his base. He is not making traction in other necessary ares voting blocs.. The six states that gave him the EC vote will not be there for him again. Where are the jobs in those six states gone to, a revised USMCA? And regardless of how the general economy is currently doing, look at these six states and how their economies are doing today.
1
There is a simple solution for every problem, though it is usually wrong. The simple solution is for the 40 states with high populations to secede from the union.
Think about what could happen or you might get what you wish for.
Without the Great Compromise which created the Electoral College that favored states with a low population, we probably would not a United States or a U.S. Constitution. We would have a union of populated states and another union of less-populated states.
There are advantages and disadvantages to being in a weak confederation of states. We might have states with slavery and apartheid and states without. We might not have entered into Great Wars and Germany or Russia might be in control.
We would be a continent divided into a number of countries each with their own policies. We might all be at war with each other.
1
@chuck
Ha! Good one. Actually, let's do what India did back in 1949 -- we'll split the country. Trumpistan will be the southern (former confederate) states, along with Texas, and a few others, and the rest will stay USA.
The electoral college is a travesty. For all those saying candidates only have to campaign in a few cities, that applied to pretty much all the world. As it is now, you only have to work hard in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. So what's so hot about only 3-4 states being the linchpin in an election? One person, one vote. Republicans understandably hate that idea because they would never elect another president.
It's going to be a severe shock to trump's carotids when voters, by a 2:1 ratio, replace him with a Democrat. Certainly, the insanity flowing from the White House after November will exceed even what we're seeing this month, but it will be worth it to be free of the entire trump clan. Come January, we will all get to enjoy reading about his taxes and his financials, including the laundered Russian money. That should help the healing. And who knows? Maybe we will have learned something about what the repub party has done to this country.
Nice statistical study but completely irrelevant. So if Trump won the national vote, all of a sudden the impeachment Democrats would decide to work with the President on behalf of their constituents instead of focusing all their time and energy into witch hunts to have him removed from office? Fat chance.
1
@ERA No such thing as witch hunts...there's a criminal in the white house who is destroying everything good about America!
Imagine being at your work place and 1 person could veto what 3/4 of the office wanted. Sounds like a great deal doesn’t it.
3
Electoral colleges shamble does not work because if you have one state, North Dakota, with 3 electoral votes a population of 760 k, New York State has 29 electoral votes but is population 20 million less do simple math that would give New York State 60 electoral votes there's a problem here is not my arithmetic it's good old math. Let's look at California with 50 elect toil votes and the population of California 40 millions California should have 120 electoral votes is there something wrong with my math yep. So why does California get only 50 electoral votes it should be discrepancy hundred 120 electoral votes and the New York State on a guest 29 electoral votes should have 60 electoral votes there something missing here so do you understand that elect toil colleges doesn't work for the masses and works in Joe blow state somewhere them in the universe it was a concept brought by the beginning of this nation.
So should be abolished electoral college and should be replaced with something fair to everybody in the majority fair for North Dakota fair for California and also fair to New York State.
So the little states have the wall over our eyes you want to continue the status quo it doesn't work and need replacing years ago the major population is cheated hundred 100 electoral votes is missing so the small state should combine themselves maybe to for states even their representatives and senators saved the taxpayers millions of dollars
1
As much as I enjoyed reading your article and well formulated data analysis, I believe Trump's real friend is the so called liberal media who doesn't seem to understand that a "centrist" candidate is less likely to win in most of the swing states (at least the ones up north) than a progressive like Bernie Sanders.
The liberal press is terrified with the prospects of their patrons, the One Percenters, getting finally the scrutiny they have avoided under so-called Democratic Presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
A news item that the editors did not open for comment is on the thoughts of Lloyd Blankfein, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, a man who believe he is doing God's work. Blankfein whom I got to know relatively well over the years I spent at that firm as a senior executive, is the son of a postman who considered their family move from The Bronx to Brooklyn as a huge step up. He is a brilliant man who made it into Harvard and HLS on full scholarship. He is also ill. He has cancer. He has had all the time in the world to reflect on his past and perhaps change his way. He didn't. He dares attacking Bernie Sanders, a fellow Jew from Brooklyn as the best bet for Russians to take this time around against Trump. Because that would maximize their interest.
So, dear authors, we have bigger problems in this election than data analysis of swing states.
I don't know if I expressed myself intelligibly.
2
I presume that when Senator McConnell and others insist that the voters rather than the Senate should decide whether Trump should be removed from office, they are referring to the popular vote rather than the electoral college!
The argument some on this thread make that the national popular vote for president is somehow "unrepresentative" because it allows states with large populations to dominate less populous states is patently specious. It's fundamentally an argument against majority rule and for minority rule. Unsurprisingly, the US Constitution was purposely designed to favor minority rule. So the question before us is simple: Do we want presidents elected democratically, or do we want the electoral college? We obviously can't have both. Those with reason to fear democratic government will obviously favor the existing system, while the rest of us have nothing to fear from changing the existing system to make it more democratic. Making this change, by whatever means seems most feasible, is in keeping with the sentiment of the majority of the American population.
@john rieh I want the electoral college - just as the Founding Fathers did.
1
Essentially, CA and NY don't count. Which is pretty good news for the rest of us.
Statistically and philosophically.
3
@Chris Unless you need our handouts, of course. Why don't you try to make it without the subsidy NY and CA send your way, and then tell us again how much you despise us?
@Chris
If in 2016, if you removed California and New York -- only those two states -- Trump won the popular vote in the remaining 48 states by 6 million.
Why should California and New York counter the sentiments of the other 48 states?
The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing...
1
@Ian
Very true. We are a federation of states, not a monolith. And the electoral college was designed to balance popular sentiment and states' rights. It works.
It will be interesting to model different voter participation rates of Democrats and the independents to:
(i) create practical strategies for a Democratic Presidential candidate winning the Electoral College, and
(ii) generate implementable counter strategies to prevent 4 more years of lawlessness.
With all the talk about the presidential election, we must not ignore or forget what is possibly a more important factor in the 2020 elections. And that is control of the Senate.
As we have seen with the current majority leader and the 53-47 Republican majority, they can thwart any Democrat president's agenda, ram thru SC and Federal judges (or block them as with Obama/Garland), and prevent the removal from office of an impeached President (Trump, should he win).
Make America Moral Again, mama.
1
The solution, at least in abstract, is simple. Formulate and pass a constitutional amendment that requires states to award electors based on the proportion of votes secured by a candidate in each state. A proportional electoral college.
Also, have to deal with the fact that, as has been stated before,
a small proportion of the US population (18% ?) is responsible for electing 52 senators.
3
In the 2016 election, I feared an hours long wait at the poll to vote Democratic. Should I have arrived to find that was true, I was debating skipping voting, as I knew Blue NJ had my missing vote covered in the electoral college. It surely wasn't a case of One Man One Vote.
But were the system One Man One Vote, I would have stood in line (with reading material) for however long.
1
Democratic governance in America is dead. Citizens United and the other Supreme Court decisions regarding gerrymandering and the Voters' Rights Act have made that official. Voting machines are hackable and use secret software that leaves no paper trail. The Republican Senate refuses to consider legislation to better protect voting infrastructure, not to mention social media, from foreign (i.e., Russian) interference. The game is over and the bad guys won, like usual. I'll vote because why not. My state will vote Democrat. But there is exactly zero reason to believe we will have a "free and fair" election. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but it's been said before and bears repeating: "Change will come from the barrel of a gun." And that's how it is.
We are only 5% into the Dem primaries. DT can activate his base and move into the moderate pool as well as anyone. Bloomberg is hugely experienced and competent. Klobuchar is the kind of centering presence the Dems need.
The current call for the Presidency would be:
1. President Trump
2. Bloomberg
3. Amy Klobuchar
1
TRUMP Allegedly continues profiting from his real estate holdings by inflating the prices of the rooms he puts the Secret Service in when he visits his golf courses and elsewhere. There are no records kept. That means that any profits Trump realizes are not taxed. It seems, therefore, that he is violating federal, state and local tax codes. I think that the AG of NY would be very interested in investigating and bringing charges as warranted. Beyond that, voters need to realize that Trump continues with his corruption, completely unabated by the impeachment. He may have been found "not guilty" by the Senate, but he was NOT acquitted of all charges. It seems highly likely that he is engaging in tax fraud on an ongoing basis. Such activities were sufficient to place Al Capone in jail. The evidence against Trump should be front and center in the campaigns of all candidates from the Democratic party.
4
Why would people who voted for a Democrat in the previous election in these swing states vote for a Republican in the next?
That is the real question. The Electoral College vote just reflects one of the challenges of federalism, that the popular vote can easily exclude the rights of people not in one of the states with the greatest populations and to prevent this kind of tyranny by the majority the electors are apportioned not strictly according to population.
Trump was elected by people who feel unrepresented in the Federal Government, people that included Democrats and Independents, whose states somehow have been excluded in the country's overall better circumstances. It's very much like the way that the one percent has become more equal in our politics than the rest. There are serious inequities in national policies which are causing this.
2
Although not a Michelle-ian proposal, perhaps an organization should arise to facilitate relocations of people who can afford some number of months away from their homes to vote in flipppable states and congressional districts. Some people move, or reside for a long enough time, to certain states for the sake of money, i.e., to avoid their home state's state income tax. Surely that's gotta be less on the up and up as moviing, for a legally sufficient amount of time, to help remove Trumplicana from our midst?
There are two ways we can be rid of the Electoral College:
1. The Republicans will, just once, lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote. They will then sputter with manufactured outrage about a "stolen" election, and a constitutional amendment providing for direct election of the president will be ratified in short order.
2. The opposite result -- Democrats win the popular vote while losing the Electoral College, as in 2000 and 2016 -- obtains repeatedly, over four, five, or six elections. Then the voters may finally have had enough and will demand action. But the Republicans, and the twenty-five or so states that like being overrepresented in presidential elections, will fight tenaciously to keep the current system in place. The result will not be pretty.
1
Constant reaction to Trump helps him the most. Can't we have one day a week where he is ignored? Why report his latest violation of the law when the attorney general and senators will not do anything other than to aid and abet.
2
"The swing states may shift slightly (Arizona in, Ohio out) ..."
Nevada still a swing state? Trump's disapproval there hit a new high of 56% in January (Morning Consult). His net approval has fallen 25 points since inauguration. Democrats won U.S. Senate seats in 2016 and 2018. Women - a weak Trump demographic - have gained a majority of state legislative seats.
A January poll in Pennsylvania: "Time for a change": 57%. Trump: 41%.
New Hampshire voters registered as Republicans, down 20,000 vs. 2016. Democrats have been winning state and federal elections there steadily in recent years.
Trump's net disapproval has been about equal in Arizona and Ohio for the past 12 months (Morning Consult).
In each of the 2016 swing states Trump's net approval rating -- despite recent upticks -- has declined by 10 or more percentage points since his inauguration.
2
How would proportional voting look for the electoral college? I believe some states may do this. What would it take for all states to do this, versus winner take all?
@JUHallCLU
Each state has the right to decide how they distribute their electoral votes.
Florida is not a swing state. Florida has a Republican governor, two Republican senators, a Republican-dominated state legislature, and a Republican-controlled Congressional delegation, making it highly unlikely that Florida will flip in 2020. Living in the Democratic rump of the state, I can tell you that there is no great groundswell of potential Democratic voters here and if the Democrats aren't making significant headway HERE they can write off Florida again.
For the Democrats, the at-risk states include Arizona, New Hampshire, Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Trump wins if he picks up Pennsylvania or Michigan, and he probably wins if he picks up Wisconsin. The Democrats must win all three of these states to win.
The National Interstate Voter Compact has absolutely no chance of succeeding because, at present, the Republican party controls 29 states with a sufficient number of electoral college votes to prevent the Compact from ever having enough members to control the 270 votes required to trigger the Compact, which may in fact not be constitutional to begin with.
It is worth noting that no Republican-controlled state has ever joined the Compact. It is also worth noting that the Republicans control 26 congressional delegations, which means that Trump will win if the Electoral Vote is tied and the election is decided by the House of Representatives.
2
The rationale for the Electoral College essentially was the need to use 18th Century technology for decision making. Fortunately, it's not required by the Constitution or we still would be using village criers as a primary news source, and the Pony Express to move mail.
@Carl The Village Crier and the Pony Express... I'd vote for that!
1
The King's math is simple. To win the electoral vote: 1) Tamper with the election first by removing political rivals like Biden, 2) Enlist support from foreign countries (email hacks) and Facebook (brazenly false ad machine) and 3) add the 24 hour support of State Run Media.
3
Electoral votes divides America in enclaves, so we stay divided. A modern electoral system must use popular vote, and mandate a rerun if the winner doesn't have more than 50%.
3
The electoral college performs today exactly as intended by the drafters of the Constitution. Even then, the states with the smaller populations were concerned with outsize influence by the larger states. Without the electoral college all the attention would be on just a handful of large states. We are the a United States of America’s, not the United People of America. The irony is the Democrats weren’t concerned with this issue last time because they thought, mistakenly, they owned a “blue wall” in the mid-west. Hilary ignored those states at her peril, Trump did not. I am so tired of the Democrats whining about this instead of focusing on messages that would unite the country.
11
Dear Mary, you believe in fair play, don't you? Maine is represented by two senators for it's 1.3 million people. I think we in California should have 62 senators to represent our 40 million.
States that most depend on federal money would be wise to reform their method of appointing electors so that the popular vote was respected. The result: candidates would need to campaign in those states and make promises about policy that affect those states. More importantly, more people would turn out to vote, and if enough states implemented such a change, it would be impossible for the winner of the popular vote to "lose" the election - something that is about as anti-democratic as you can get.
2
I wish there had been more discussion of the nuts and bolts processes of the states which have been attempting to allow electors to vote in reflection of the popular vote. Also this statement that both parties aren't interested in abolishing the electoral college is an incorrect blanket statement. Of course some candidates will advocate for that idea, especially Democrats. (It was a good article overall though thanks)
1
Trump lost the popular vote because 4.5 million people voted for Gary Johnson, 50% more than his deficit with Clinton. There are unlikely to be any serious third-party conservative challengers this time around.
The Electoral College is a red herring that Democrats need to stop blaming for their ineptitude and unpopularity. There is no thwarted liberal majority in this country. Clinton couldn't get 50% against the least qualified, most offensive man in modern history, let alone win according to the rules American presidential politics play under. While Democratic elites twiddle about the electoral college, Trump is gaining on them. He'll narrow his margins with black and Latino men and would likely eke out a 49-48% victory in the popular vote, along with a landslide in the Electoral College, if the election were held today.
The Democrats need to develop an economic contract that works for a majority of people in all parts of the country. They cannot continue to support only wealthy professional coastal people while dividing the rest of America with identity politics, and hoping that minorities remain stuck voting for their empty platform.
10
At some point we in the USA have to demand that we scrap the constitution and write a new governing document based on the century we live in. This is insanity. I hate hearing stuff like "That's not what the founders intended". Who cares what men that lived 250 -300 years ago thought about how the Nation should be governed? We need a popular vote now and we also need to get rid of the senate giving 2 seats to every state! Montana doesn't deserve to get more representation per capita than California.
2
Honestly, the Democratic Party should get past this mental block about Electoral College disadvantage and figure out progressive policies that appeal to voters in the swing states that elect the President and Senators.
Yes, this might mean, give and take with the sacred cows of immigration, tax policies, defense, and climate change. Red lines are useless if there is no chance to govern.
Democratic Primary voters should also choose a nominee who reflects such an attitude. Otherwise, be prepared for a loss: the stats are compelling as one can see.
5
Thankfully, the electoral college doesn't allow heavily populated, mostly liberal cities to decide regardless of your preferred candidate. You do have a popular vote per se, in that a state's electors must vote consistent with their state's popular vote, so indeed, every vote counts.
4
There is no requirement in the Constitution that electors vote for the statewide winner. In fact this question was litigated after the 2016 election when the state of Washington sought to punish a so-called unfaithful elector who had voted for a tribal leader instead of Clinton. The court decided that the state could not punish the elector for exercising her independent decision.
Electors are free to choose whomever they want, just as the Constitution intended. Electors could conceivably ignore the results of the November 3 election and choose the other candidate, or someone else entirely. The real election happens in December when the Electoral College convenes.
I don't know why should we than the system that disfranchises the majority of population. I am yet to see a good argument why dictate of minority is better than dictate of majority.
1
The electoral college will "put him back"? No, Americans throughout the country -- in all those states between New York and California -- will put him back if he wins.
6
If American voters didn’t put him in the White House in 2016, what makes you think they will now?
The Electoral College put him in office. That’s why Trump and the Democratic nominee will concentrate only on swing states.
3
@SandraH.
Next time, democrats need to get the votes where it matters.
And if they cannot figure this out, they don't deserve to be in the White House.
2
If he wins a popular vote, if he doesn't it will be the EC that put him in the WH, not the people of America
If the Democratic nominee wins a close decision in our antiquated Electoral College, which has no rational reason to exist, Trump will claim it was rigged and try to stay right where he is. After weeks of confusion and possibly violence the Supreme Court will decide the outcome, and the Joint Chiefs, who are taught in the military academies to obey civilian authority, will obey the court. It could turn out that Republican senators decided the outcome of the 2020 election when they pulled a fast one by switching Brett Kavanaugh for Merrick Garland.
3
The Electoral College has to go. Likewise in effect, 52% of the Senate represents 18% of the population. This is wrong! Throw in gerrymandering and voter suppression and you have a crisis of legitimacy. Government is supposed to represent the needs and concerns of people, not real estate. At least have states link their electors to the winner of the popular vote. Force future Presidents to consider the needs of the entire nation, not just their base.
8
@Scratch
Is there nothing progressives don't want demolished? The electoral college. The SCOTUS. Whatever stands between them and what they want, they seek to destroy.
2
@AACNY Au contraire, AACNY. Trump is busy attacking the norms and values of this country, and going after our institutions. He wants the Justice Department to be his personal legal team. He wants the courts to be packed with hard right judges and would ignore the “Merrick Garland rule” if something happens to RBG or Breyer before the election. He’s shameless in his conduct and tweets but the Fear Caucus either claps and cheers or is silent. Are you old enough to remember when Rush Limbaugh said on his show, “Democrats are not to compromised with.....they are to be defeated....they are to be destroyed.” Now we have the ghastly spectacle of Trump awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to one of the originators of hate radio. The GOP is just as complicit in “destruction” as any progressive.
The answer is pretty simple. States should vote to allow proportional electoral college votes based on the popular vote in their state. This is vastly more democratic, can allow candidates to win some votes even in states with large liberal or conservative populations that would otherwise be ignored. This is a much simpler ask in my view. My guess is Democrats and Republicans would oppose this as it would siphon votes away from states that normally go democratic or republican. Still, this is a simple answer to maintain the original framework while incorporating the popular vote.
The popular vote is no panacea. Many people don't vote because they feel the vote won't count. Unleashing voters may not work to the calculus of the party desiring change (currently Democrats). Remember that no one was complaining about the electoral college and Senators from small states having too much power when the Democrats were in power. I never hear Daschle complain about this.
More importantly, elections will be decided by the coasts where more people are located. This will be much more expensive, and potentially more divisive if states feel abandoned. Smaller candidates will not be able to compete. Imagine the cost of running so much airtime in so many markets. The establishment will have even more power in elections.
1
Your solution has been around for some time. The problem with it is that all 50 states would have to decide to participate, and that’s a heavier lift than the Interstate Compact, which only requires enough states to total 270 electoral votes.
It’s also much simpler and cleaner to use a nationwide popular vote that would eliminate the disproportionate representation between big and little states. Everyone’s vote would count equally, regardless of where you live.
I’ve heard many on the right argue that Democrats never brought up any dissatisfaction with the EC until 2016. They said the same thing when Democrats complained in 2000. It doesn’t matter how much Democrats talk about it, there will always be those who complain that it’s a new topic.
We’ll have to live with the EC for now, but for the sake of all our children we need to move toward greater democracy.
There's a simple way to rectify the electoral college. I did the math. The current system is twice as unequal as the one the framers negotiated. That is, the difference between Rhode Island and Virginia, back then, was half the difference between the small and large states today. There's no way the framers would have agreed to the current unequal arrangement - they fought hard over the balance they achieved.
The EC is based on a state's total Congressional delegation, house members + Senators. Inequality arises from the Senate. If instead of each state's total including 2 Senators, have it include 1. That ups the ratio of the more democratic (small d) house contribution. In fact it cuts in half the current inequality, putting it back where it was in the founder's time.
In other words let's start by reasserting the original compromise, then work to forge direct election. There's a lot of baloney around about why direct elections weren't in the Constitution. The core reason was they weren't possible. People took several months to reach Philly, and plenty were robbed or worse along the way. Collecting national ballots was a pipe dream. It's such a different context that we can't imagine, and don't.
But the main take away is that as soon as trains and telegraph happened, direct elections were possible.
3
Thank you for a well thought out article.
"He appears more than willing to appeal in particular to relatively large constituencies of older, white voters without a college degree in those three tipping-point states. ''
Who among the current democratic candidates can attract those voters?
Trump only won states like key Midwest states like Michigan and Wisconsin by a whisker, primarily because of Clinton's disastrous "strategy" to take them for granted. African-Americans also stayed home, compared to the Obama wins.
You think Sanders (or Bloomberg) will let that happen again? You think this phantom "great" economy will keep going until the fall? You think the China tariffs and now epidemic virus are NOT going to stall the economy?
5
This deeply analytical article helps provides a rational basis for picking which of the two basic paradigms for beating Trump is the more convincing. Bernie backers contend that it is the zeal he is able to stimulate that will drive new voters to the polls, thereby vanquishing Trump. Backers of the center-left candidates contend that the key is to win the battleground states by attracting moderate and independent voters.
So far empirically I see no evidence that Bernie's purported special magnetism even exists. Total turnout in Iowa was almost 25% LOWER than in 2008. While he managed a narrow popular vote win in New Hampshire, he collected only 25% of voters. Moreover, even if he does theoretically energize more of the Democratic base to vote won't the preponderance of these new voters be in states already likely to be in the Democratic column? On the other hand, Democratic gains in 2018 empirically demonstrated that moderates do win elections in swing districts and states. The KEY TO WINNING the Electoral College is carrying the battleground states. Consequently a balanced assessment concludes that Amy Klobuchar stands a considerably better chance of accomplishing this absolutely vital victory than does Bernie Sanders.
130
@Delphi
The Iowa caucus came right on the heels of the Senate impeachment “can’t-call-it-a-trial” debacle.
This charade, worthy of the most despotic regimes in history, hit me like a gut punch. I holed up in my home for most of a week feeling as if I’d been the victim of a mugging.
While the press has ignored the possible connection, I’m guessing my reaction was hardly unique. It seems very likely this demoralizing moment served to suppress attendance in Democratic caucuses in Iowa.
The flip side is that what follows this period of sorrow is real anger. I suspect all citizens who actually care about their country will be even angrier in November.
19
@Delphi You didn't factor in the personality of the candidates that are in play here. For example however well positioned Klobachar appears to be in the general scheme of things I'll be frank here, she is the worst public speaker. She has this smug little soccer-mom-knows-best smirk I can't stand. And she defaults questions all the time with broad and obvious swipes at trump that are cheap applause triggers. Likewise Bernie is energetic and communicates his points well, although there's his anger problem my only point here being demographics are only part of the equation there's personality.
6
I don't think you make a very good point. 2008 turnout was great and the Dems won, but they were not able to do that in 2000, 2004, 2016 and lost the elections despite the centrists candidate. 2018 the turnout was higher and Dems won. Clearly turnout is the key. Could the centrists generate the turnout, Seems like mostly not. 2018 was the product of exciting developments in Dem party that push the Party to the left. It generated the wave of excitement that lift the centrists candidates as well, and because they were already in state that were inclined to swing that let these candidates win. The progressive who ran in much more red state had difficult time but they come closer to winning than any centrists before them. Without the excitement the left generate, even most conservative Dems could not win against most flawed Rep candidates, see McCready
6
No one ever won the World Series just by scoring the most runs; first to four is what counts.
Just the same with the election - if your focus is on the popular vote, you are playing the wrong game, and deserve to lose.
8
But the Presidency is not a game, it is the election process that helps to elect the person who will lead the country, and it helps when such person has support of the majority of the population.
2
I doubt any American thinks the Democratic nominee should go for the popular vote. The focus of this column and its comments is how to fix our broken electoral college system for the future so our children can have a more responsive democracy.
1
@Andy
Seriously, this is getting so tedious. Grow where you are planted. Win an election in the system that exists not the one you wish existed.
2
What this article makes clear, and what we have already known for some time, is that the electoral college is highly undemocratic and is doing great damage to our country by allowing highly partisan, minoritarian politicians to win office. This has also contributed to increasing our partisan divides by forcing politicians to burn bridges in order to win elections, instead of building them. There is only one solution - the electoral college must be abolished and replaced with a nation-wide, one-person one-vote, selection of the President. And while we are at it, representation in the Senate must also be changed. It is insane hat 18% of the population control a majority of the Senate seats - and surely not what the founders would have have supported.
190
@Greg
It's also worth noting that our government has evolved to be something quite different from what the founders envisioned. As laid out in the constitution (and the Federalist), the House of Representatives was supposed to be the most important and central body, where the real work of government would get done. The Senate was supposed to be a group of older, presumably wiser statesmen who would moderate any excesses of the House, acting as a sort of board of directors. The president was supposed to be a manager responsible for running day-to-day operations, not the important work of legislation, which belongs to congress. Needless to say, these powers are very different today.
I think it is significant that the founders wanted the most important body to be elected by districts of comparable population, and that the more indirect methods (electoral college and appointment by state legislature) were to be applied to the other offices.
27
@Greg please help me to understand. Your logic implies that the entire country should be held hostage to the majority (coastal elites). The electoral college ensures that the United States can minimize one ruling class of people (liberal/leftists/communists/socialists/democrats) controlling everyone. Also, until there is a national/federal voter registration standard that is as stringent as U.S. Passport standards, we can never trust the popular vote. Illegal voting exists. As of today, the electoral college is the only thing preventing the U.S. becoming a Socialist/Communist country. Cheers!
11
Pass an amendment. Good luck with that!
5
I'm one of the "many Americans" who doesn't understand the electoral college, except I understand that it seems my vote does not matter because of it's presence. And then when I see articles like this that say candidates have to focus on the swing states, none of which are where I live, I feel even less as if my vote counts. I'm a fairly well educated person and consider myself tuned in, but if I feel this way, well..........
3
@JG Well, maybe you should think more about defeating Trump and less about your personal vote. As in volunteering to help in the swing states. That kind of defeatism is precisely what will allow another term for Trump. We can't just sit back and let the flood wash us down the river.
I'm more concerned about the role of money, lobbyists and paid consultants play in the electoral process.
Take a look at the number of lawyers on either side, all of whom spout good intentions but their actions belie their words.
Let's clean up the system from within first: Make sure Congressmen and Congresswomen we elect read the bill they vote on, the bill shouldn't be more than 10 pages and be written so that fifth graders can understand it.
Our democracy's model is elitist. Accept it and get ready to make changes, including reining in the 24/7 news cycles.
A simple solution:
a) Divide California into four states.
b) Make Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington One State.
c) Make New York into two States.
d) Make Florida into two States
e) Turn Texas into three States.
Let the Electoral Votes for each State be divided up into
Electoral Vote per Congressional District and Senatorial Electoral Votes.
The Winner of each District gets that Electoral Vote, the winner of the State get the two Senatorial Electoral Votes.
Now it is worthwhile to campaign in States that have districts that favor you and your party.
We remain the United States of America and do not turn
into the Federal Republic of America.
2
Your “simple solution” is neither. It just kicks the can down the line as you crudely try to gerrymander.
Score voting / range voting coupled with a national popular vote compact is actually the solution. Ask any statistician or engineer who can be bothered to look at it.
The commentary suggests a Democratic base that doesn't deserve to win. Anyone crying foul over an Electoral College that has been around for 200+ years only reveals his own lack of understanding. Dislike the College? Work to change it in a sustained, focused effort, but don't sit around until a presidential election and then express surprise and horror that it exists.
4
I'm an effete Liz Warren fan for peace and want structural change right now, but I just sent Amy Klobuchar the first of what I hope will be many donations towards an increasingly successful campaign. She's dogged as hell and experienced enough to be a good-enough President. In looks and speech she's just plain enough to get through the "elites will be shot" filters of swing states, and she's smart enough to get her message across. So many opinion writers and commenters are climbing aboard the vast Bloomberg float. For me, not quite yet. If anyone can penetrate the suspicious minds in swing states, I think it's Klobuchar. Let's hope she can compete with Bernie to win and then let Bloomberg support her with everything he's got.
5
I agree. I’ve been impressed by her debate performances. She’s smart and tough and funny, and she’s quick on her feet. She also knows Midwestern voters.
What I still don't get after 3 years is why it's a contest even in swing states. After all his blatant lies and highly visible corruption, his obvious interest in himself and no one else, why does he have so much support even in the deepest red states?
If I imagine myself a Republican I can imagine voting against Sanders or Warren because of irrational fear of their tax-the-rich rhetoric. But I'd still be in the "strongly disapprove of Trump" segment because he's amply demonstrated he can't govern by attacking our allies.
I guess if you're kind of simple minded you might give credit to Trump for the economy. In reality the economy doesn't change that fast, and it takes something catastrophic by government to torpedo it. Even Trump's tariffs, despite being stupid and destructive, won't change things quickly.
Of course Trump takes credit for it. He takes credit for things done before he was elected, and he takes credit for things that haven't actually happened, like the imaginary opening of steel plants, or creating more jobs than have actually been creating in the last 12 years. But why would anyone swallow that? He's so obvious about his other lies, why would you believe those?
5
The South prevented his Impeachment and they will get him elected again. It's an irrelevant archaic system not gaining momentum for destruction. Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell come from two southern states that combined are collectively 3% of the National Population. Checks and Balances means nothing if the Checks aren't Working to Balance.
3
@That's What She Said
TN 1.54%+SC2.05%= 3.59% For TN and SC.
.59% Wins tight elections.
Dictators don't "win" elections, they "rig" them. Just like ours will be, for generations to come. Thank the GOP for installing the United States' first dictator.
7
Vinod, what is the probability of anyone correctly pronouncing Bakthavachalam? Have you thought about downsizing to 2 or 3 syllables? Would make life easier here in the USA.
@MCH Why should he change his family name for random internet commenters? If you worked in IT or finance you would meet many people with names of non European provenance. And you would learn how to pronounce them. It's really no big deal.
But for the Electoral College, we would never have had a country. So those are the rules everyone plays by, and it elected Lincoln, FDR, Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and Obama. It is true that Trump could lose by 5 or 6 million popular votes and be reelected through the Electoral College. But that is because those you think are his supporters are not so much his supporters as opponents of the left, and see that there is less difference between Bernie and Pete and Amy and Elizabeth and Joe and even Michael than the press would like them to believe.
5
"18% of the nation control 52 Senate seats" J. Carville 2/07/20
3
Nothing like giving POTUS's minions a clear and understandable statistical report, and thus provide virtually a foolproof blueprint as to how to win the election!
Nice job, NYT!
Feh!
1
I hope that many electoral college members will cast a vote that goes against the ''winner take all'' credo.
Get rid of the impeached Liar.
2
Apparently the authors failed high school civics. The Electoral College is the ONLY determinant for the Presidential election. The liberals are going all in to discredit Trump's re-election and to permanently damage our democratic republic. If Trump wins, he "won't really be President" because he "stole it from the people."
The Democrats are playing right into Russian and Chinese agenda: weaken the United States to a point whereby they will collapse on our own. Don't believe me? Look up the term "useful idiot" and see for yourself.
3
I'm not sure that I know what you mean. I didn't see anything in the article that indicates the Electoral College is anything but the final say on electing a president.
2
"How Trump Is Running to Snatch Victory From the Jaws of Defeat, Again
Even if he decisively loses the national vote, the Electoral College can put him back in the White House."
If such a travesty did happen, I think the American people would rise up and have a new revolution with a rewrite of the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College and the laws on Emoluments and a few other protections against those like Trump would would make themselves a King or claim they were above any law of the land. Term limits in Congress might also be visited and changed.
Or the Democrats can strategize better and win. How about that?
7
I blame the NYT if he wins again. I know Barack won but I still don't think the country is ready for a gay president, or someone who is 77 years old or a woman and you guys refuse to find someone who is electable and to get behind that candidate
Thanks for the bad news. Should we give up and stay home?
Russia, if you, China, the Saudi’s and Turkey are listening,
concentrate your efforts on the swing states.
See you guys in the Oval immediately after the election.
You each get two scoops of ice cream.
Promises made. Promises kept. Free rooms at my hotel.
2
How Trump wins again? That's obvious.
Gerrymandering. Corruption. Hacking. Misinformation. Blackmail. Obstruction. Collusion. Treason. Treachery. Fear. Hatred. Scapegoating. Racism. Threats. Duplicity. Hypocrisy. Bribery. Lying. Incitement. Tampering. Payoffs. Malfeasance. Chicanery. Fabrications. Disenfranchisement. Victimization. Appeasement. Pandering. Rigging. Conspiracy. Fraud. Spitefulness. Misdirection. Pontification. Demagoguery. Bating. Intimidation. Dog-whistles. Bluster. Coercion. Distortions. Bullying. Influence Peddling. Extortion. Foreign Interference. Foreign Intervention.
And, last but not least, with the help of the Electoral College.
You know... the exact same way he "won" last time.
9
Rely on Democrats to do some heavy lifting by letting them (1) almost exclusively play to urban progressives, (2) continue to label all whites "racists," and (3) lull their base into thinking that "demographic change" somehow translates into invincibility. Why mess with success?
5
So We The People majority no longer count.....! That is the most disgusting truth about life in these united (?) states of trump. My vote and all the others of the popular vote majority do not count unless they live in the Electoral rich numbers of Penn. Michigan, Ohio etc. Who would ever have thought this could happen, yet here we are. The majority becomes the minority.
3
@Harrie "Who would ever have thought this could happen, yet here we are." Um, the Electoral College was not invented in 2016. Nobody was hiding the rule book.
2
"Even if he decisively loses the national vote, the Electoral College can put him back in the White House."
Yeah, thanks for the reminder.
I doubt there is one Democrat who doesn't worry about a repeat of that scenario come November 3rd.
And what can the ordinary citizen like me do about that?
Not a dang thing.
4
@Marge Keller You could tell your local party to stop playing exclusively to "progressives" in big cities. You could demand that your party stop criticizing "moderates" who are insufficiently pure.
4
The electoral college is what it always has been - a mechanism for white supremacists to assure that the will of the majority remains superseded by a minority of white voters. It exists in the Constitution as a slavery protection mechanism for the then slave states so that their economic model of slave labor could resist the industrialization and urbanization of the north. Until that racist mechanism is eliminated, this country is not a democracy.
3
" ... the president might consider changing his conduct. He might decide to appeal to the wishes of most Americans ... " The chances of that are slim and none. His conduct has gotten progressively worse during his presidency, more divisive and nastier toward anyone not sufficiently subservient to him. He is a disgrace, pure and simple. His impeachment acquittal was the direct result of Republicans in Congress driven by cynical careerism, nothing else.
2
Yes but you failed to define your term ‘popular vote’
What is ‘popular vote’. Does it mean how many people voted? In that case why vote at all?
The largest most populous regions in the country are all in the pocket of the Democratic Party. If you were to select the winner based on numbers of votes, then we would always have a Democratic Party government. Kind of like voting Republican in NYC, it’s never going to count for anything at all. This is also why most people stay home. If you’re in CA, MD, NJ, NY, MA, WA, then no matter how loud you scream, your vote does not and will never count. Same goes for Blue votes in deep red regions. People know this, and stay home, because why try, your guy will not get your vote anyway.
The Democrats complain, but then again they know they have more people in California than there are in the entire Mid West. Should we ignore the Mid West just to please California? No sir.
So yes, no need for Trump to waste time and money in CA, or NJ, or MA, he’s not going to win there.
It’s called strategy.
And at this his handlers are masters.
2
And let’s not forget the obvious...The Democrats are doing everything in their power to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I do believe trump “prays” for a Sanders nomination.
The point of the election campaign IS to win the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Stop trying to make this seem like it is an evil plot. IF it s was strictly popular vote, candidates could focus 90% of their attention on just ten states (or something similar), which is exactly why the Electoral College was established. Stop the nonsense!
5
@Pls - "candidates could focus 90% of their attention on just ten states (or something similar), which is exactly why the Electoral College was established."
You assume. Or are just making it up.
Exactly why?
The popular vote wasn't used to select delegates to the Electoral Collage until 1824. Well after it was established.The early elections, closest to the establishment of the Constitution and electoral college did not feature campaigns as electors were selected by the state legislators.
You can build as perfect a house as humanity is able, but it will always have a way for a cockroach to get in.
While the builders of our democracy government worked overtime to prevent despots from reaching the pinnacles of power here, a cockroach got in.
Will our voters wake up ... or not?
Do not depend on the Constitution with its 'electoral college' disappointment to sort this out.
1
If Trump wins re-election without the popular vote again, we need to have a revolution for real.
1
We are a republic, not a democracy. The history of democracy is brutish and short. Those who press for it are showing their impatient, totalitarian tendencies.
4
Exactly.
So, media friends, please give us news about what people are saying in the few states that will actually matter.
National polls mean nothing.
2
Play the game with the rules you have, rather than the rules you wish you had.
3
Age-old story. If you can't win fairly, cheat.
So Robert’s Kansas Senate seat is not in play? Lindsay is a lock over Harrison? Trump is a gift.
You guys crack me up! Our's is an Electoral College system. It's intrinsic to the big state/small state compromise that allowed for our country's founding, just like Representatives and Senators. "National vote" is irrelevant. The states elect the President. You could blow the whole thing up and try to create a new union, but I think you'd wind up where we are now: big state/small state compromise.
3
Give me a break. The goal is to win the Electoral College. Somehow, Democrats haven't figured out that simple fact.
2
Of the tens of thousands of elective offices in this country--from local City Councils and School Boards all the way up to the US Presidency--there is ONLY ONE where the candidate can gain a majority of the votes cast for the office s/he seeks and still be denied that office. And that is the Office of President of the United States.
Something is clearly wrong with this picture!
Either every vote cast by a US citizen in a Presidential election carries equal weight--or it doesn't. And as long as the EC remains in place, some votes will--completely unfairly IMO--carry more weight than others. I see no reason why this should be so.
3
@revsde
Alas, reason has nothing to do with it.
To DNC strategists: setup Superpacs in Florida, PA, and Michigan. There are many billionaires set on defeating Trump who can fund these - and flood those states with TV ads starting in late August, and Facebook ads appealing to the Trump demographic groups that are "swingable" (and there are many). Have Madison Avenue create these ads / slogans that will show what a disingenuous person Trump is and how he is not helping them - but is lying to them just like he does to everyone else. Something like "Trump for Trump" or "He doesn't care about you." You get the idea.
3
The Electoral College system is necessary to protect our federal republic. Each state is responsible for their elections. Each state determines who they will send to Washington to represent them in Congress. But, the presidency is special, because it’s the only office that all Americans vote on. The federal government should not rely on the vote counts submitted by the individual states for determining who wins the presidency. It would open a door to all kinds of fraud accusations that would ultimately lead to the collapse of our country. That’s why each state has a limited number of electoral votes they get for determining the president. The only way around this would be for the federal government to hold a special election just for the president. It would be far too costly; similar to holding a census.
4
@Mark What?
Logically, in the current incarnation of the Electoral College, the federal government has to rely on the popular vote count for presidential candidates tabulated by each of the states. With most states dispatching all of its Electors with a command to vote for the presidential candidate, who must have won only a plurality but not a majority of the popular vote, minority government is practically guaranteed. The overall result is that a vote by an U.S. citizen in Iowa has must greater weight than a vote by an U.S. citizen in California. To label all of this a representative democracy or republic is a stretch.
Of course, originally, the Electoral College was conceived so that the president is not chosen by the people but by members of the Electoral College. States would appoint their members of the Electoral College based on expertise, ability and character to make the best choice for president regardless of political party affiliation and other conflicts of interest. In such an Electoral College, no sane Elector would have voted for a demagogic clown like Donald Trump to head the executive branch of the federal government when other individuals (not necessarily Hillary Clinton) were available to serve.
@Mac
The federal government doesn't rely on the popular vote count tabulated by each state. If it did, then this wouldn't be a federal republic.
I am paranoid that fictitious states with presidents' last names: Harding, Coolidge, Cleveland, Harrison will suddenly start existing, each one with a hundred or more electoral votres. Trump will simply create them by executive order and the Supreme Court "will look into it, whether this is constitutional or not" and due to their busy calendar will give us their decision later in the 2020s. Meanwhile, the democrats will get 80% of the popular vote and almost all of the electoral votes but still be drowned out. This is how America will keep getting greater and greater.
@NTH
'fictitious states with presidents' last names ... Trump will simply create them by executive order ...
Meanwhile, the democrats will get 80% of the popular vote ....'
And there it is.
This is the level of delusion that people talk about and the reason why they point and laugh at Liberals.
80% of the popular vote, wow. Create states to get their electoral votes. Oh my.
No wonder people have left the Democrats in droves.
1
@AutumnLeaf Autumnleaf, maybe you should google "satire"?
Trump can, and might, win by intimidating the candidate that runs against him. Recall the cloud over Bernie Sanders’ wife’s from problems at Burlington College and a Trump associate filing a complaint about Ms. Sanders inflating donor commitments. Or think of Biden and the Republican senate conducting an investigation in Joe Biden and Burisma extending to November. Or about Pete Buttigieg and homophobic slurs and investigations into alleged sexual misconduct that could lead to alleged security compromises. Trump and the congressional Republicans know no restraint and will use the full force of government to sway the election.
2
Build the Firewall to contain Trump and let Mr. Bloomberg pay for it.
3
What is the point of this column? Is it to create fear and panic in the Dems? Is it to prepare/ console a (potential) reality that hasn't happened? Click bait?
Yep, the electoral system is not a true democracy -- it is a representative democracy. The founders did that on purpose because they thought the population was too ignorant and they did not want this kind of power to be in the hands of ordinary people (like me and most people).
And yes, the republicans have corrupted it further to reinforce and enhance the electoral weight.
These are knowns -- the could be changed if there is political will or the people take to the streets.
AND, nothing is going to change between now and November -- we know the challenges, we know the structural bias against Dems and democracy, AND WE MUST FIGHT THROUGH IT AND DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO DEFEAT Trump and all the feckless sycophant Trump servants - Graham, McConnell, Barr, Mulvaney, etc.
And purge, the mealy mouthed Susan Collins, and bizzarro GOP folks like Rand Paul and Devin Nunes.
This columns doesn't help. If you want to help, work in the background to eliminate the electoral college - save the NY Column space for things we can do right now in support of a Trump free December 2020 and beyond.
5
Depressing is all I can think of. World’s greatest democracy, I think not.
If Trump wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote, there will be an armed revolution in this country.
@Marc
'If Trump wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote, there will be an armed revolution in this country.'
By who?
New Yorkers?
Can you even load a gun? point aim? have a human in the cross hairs and pull the trigger?
Oh yea I can see the Brooklyn people arming themselves, with strongly written words proclaiming they are offended. Oh my, the horror.
Did you see the protest in VA? that is who you would face. Not even Antifa showed up to counter protest.
Now sit down and finish your vegan lunch.
2
@Marc
An armed revolution?
You have to have arms for that to occur.
One side in this country is armed to the teeth and is hugely over represented among police, military and private security.
The other side thinks guns are evil and no one needs them, ever...except police, military and private security. Their idea of "confrontation" stops at nasty tweets. Many of them seem to hate the very idea of masculinity.
So , no there won't be any armed revolution--at least not coming from the second group of folks.
I'm keen to know who funds Making Every Vote Count. Is it about making America more democratic, or imposing the tyranny of the Coasts?
2
You have it backwards. The Democrats are poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Moderate candidates such as Bennet and Bullock are gone and I am losing hope that we find someone to save us from the abyss.
1
The two authors here are way off the mark on 2020. If you want to know who will win on 3 November 2020, go to Professor Helmut Norpath's "Primary Model," as he is always right. Bernie chances of beating Trump in 2016 was 1%. He is the ONLY political scientist in America to predict 2016 correctly. His model will be out by 31 March 2020. He will be right again. Bernie has high-jacked the Democrat Party. A socialist will not win in 2020.
3
Texas is in the path of becoming a swing state and it will play a crucial role in the 2020 election. If Texas flips to blue, Trump will have a hard time in 2020.
2
@Seetha A socialist candidate will not carry Texas.
1
Short of a miracle, we are not going to be able to rid ourselves of the Electoral College, or the minoritarian Senate majority. American democracy's formula is broken, and it's going to take some very creative thinking to save it.
What would be great is if some liberal billionaires would start building housing in some of these very low population western states, and provide free housing for recent college graduates. Maybe provide them with low interest business loans to pump new life blood into these aging, emptying out places like Wyoming, Kansas, Nebraska.
1
Dems, you need to get yourselves a new meme. The national popular vote is IRRELEVANT in presidential elections. Either get over it and accept that we live in a republic, not a democracy, or change it with a constitutional amendment. Both are splendid options. In the meantime STOP WHINING about an electoral structure that has been in place since March 4, 1789.
6
Permanently dumb contention, resting on some non-existent political non-entity, "the national vote." If and when constitutional reforms are enacted to change our electoral system from a poll of states to a poll of the general public, get back to us. At that point, there won't be Iowa caucuses and NH primaries, because those states will count for little in the general contest, and candidates will confine themselves largely to coastal area and their narrow concerns. Until then, "the national vote" is barely even a talking point.
1
Unfortunately I believe that Trump will not leave voluntarily even if he loses. He will scream fraud and he knows that he can count on Republicans to back him.
2
Re-eIecting Trump will be bad for this country but his losing the election by a narrow margin could be an outright calamity. Trump is sure to contest the election, refuse to concede and walk his supporters up to the edge of violence to keep him in office.
He must lose the electoral college vote by a large margin.
125
@YMR
He can contest the election and ask for recounts. He has the right. But when he loses those, all it takes are two armed Military Police officers to escort him out the door.
15
@YMR
He loses, he gets out.
Stop being so dramatic.
8
@Rick Morris Unfortunately it only takes 5 activist right-wing Supreme Court justices to abandon relevant facts in an election and appoint Trump president. CF Bush v. Gore.
12
What happened to "The Majority Rules"?
Those complaints about the "Coastal Liberal Elites", is a lot of nonsense. I live on the East Coast, in "liberal" New York State, but my neighborhood is primarily Republican. New York City contains the majority of the liberal electorate, but rural New York is strongly Republican. That part of the state might as well be Kansas.
As for California, and especially Los Angeles/Hollywood, the Republicans do very well there, too. Except, of course, for all those effete Hollywood types like Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and George Murphy (anyone remember Senator Murphy, the song and dance man?).
The Electoral College was a reward given to the wealthy "royalists", to help keep the real power out of the hands of Jefferson's more democratic supporters, who they must have realized would soon outnumber them.
3
This is the hand we have been dealt and there is no point in wasting time trying to eliminate the Electoral College system. Obama got 365 and 332 electoral votes in 2008 and 2012 respectively.The democrats can still win under this unfair system--if voters get to caste their votes against the republican efforts at disenfranchisement. The only way to get rid of the electoral college is for the hypocrits/republicans to win the popular vote and lose the electoral college. I would love to see Trump and Fox News demand this change in November after somebody beats him in the electoral college. (Lord hear my prayers!)
4
The electoral college makes no sense in this day and age. The fact that a candidate can win with less votes than their rival is just wrong!
Liz in Indiana wrote that eliminating the electoral college will never happen.
It has to happen! If not now, then someday in the foreseeable future. It gives the EC states way too much power.
Also something needs to be done about the Senate. 7 northern states, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, etc. have the same population as Los Angeles county yet they all have 2 Senators just as all of California! Is That fair or correct?
I think not
.
4
@DC
Not this again.
Nothing can be "done" about the Senate. The Constitution clearly lays out that each state is guaranteed equal suffrage in the Senate. This CAN'T EVEN BE REMOVED BY AMENDMENT. The only way a state can lose equal suffrage in the Senate is if it agrees to do so.
Effectively this means that EVERY state would have to agree to do this. And this isn't going to happen.
If California residents don't like how some small populated conservative leaning states vote, I would bet that some Texas residents are not fond of how some small populated liberal leaning states like Vermont or Hawaii or Rhode Island vote.
The solution in both cases is the same.
MOVE.
Californians could move to Wyoming, Montana or anywhere else where they think the people aren't voting properly. Problem solved.
I have been a registered voter for 50 years and have voted in every presidential election during that time. WILL I BE ABLE TO VOTE in this year's election? I'm not sure. I live in a red state. Will a PURGE REMOVE MY REGISTRATION because I happen to be OUT OF STATE visiting my grandchildren when the POSTCARD ARRIVES SAYING I MUST REPLY WITHIN TWO WEEKS or be eliminated?
12
@Semi-retired so make arrangements so that does not happen. People deployed all over the world from the Midwest manage to vote in their state.
1
All the more reason for the Dem nominee to be someone who appeals to swing voters in swing states, plus a percentage of Republicans. That means Bloomberg.
9
Don't you love it when a "data scientist" five years out of school tells Trump how he should go about winning the election?
Trump is going to steamroll his way to another four years, and he will do it using his own intuition and gut instinct - not paying consultation fees to some some hi-tech data-wonk running "10,000 simulated elections" in a computer while "inserting variations on the base assumptions..."
And that's part of the reason people like him so much!
5
@99percent Where have you been for the last three years? People DON'T like him. His rabid base loves him but "people" most certainly do not. Seventy one percent of Americans wanted to hear the witnesses speak during the impeachment trial. That's seventy one percent that did not trust him.
2
That’s quite an unimpressive act you have there trying to paper over the reality of Cambridge analytica
@99percent By intuition you mean blister and lies. That plus a complicit right wing press and the road to fascism is well paved.
On the other hand, a candidate would only have to kowtow to a few big states to win the popular vote. I dunno. This little r republic is an imperfect system. But it's fun to think of what would happen with, say, farm policy and gun control and public lands policy if we did away with the electoral college and senate.
6
"even if the general population prefers the Democratic nominee by much more than was the case in 2016, Mr. Trump has almost a one-third chance of winning the Electoral College"
Which suggests that the general, unconditional probability of a Trump win (i.e. over both the low and high democrat turnout scenarios) should be around 50%.
In other words too close to call. This should be a reminder to self-promoting pundits who claim near-certain knowledge of the 2020 outcome, or to know which candidate is or is not electable. We will only know in November.
2
The electoral college will be abolished by 2024 as a function of our national election process especially if the GOP is out voted for the eighth straight national election.
9
It appears only Michael Bloomberg understands this, as this is where he is focusing his campaign. I could see a ticket of Bloomberg/Klobuchar easily winning the popular and electoral votes needed.
15
Bloomberg/Klobuchar wins the big ticket. Bloomberg steps down at the end of the first year, leaving Amy Klobuchar the first woman president. She could serve for a total of 11 years.
1
@Neal the biggest challenge is getting the democratic purists and Bernie followers who think that Bloomberg is "buying the election" to support him. I agree that Bloomberg is the best one to beat Trump and I am thrilled that he's using his fortune to self-fund, it's better than being funded by special interest groups.
1
@Neal I agree enthusiastically to your prediction, Bloomberg/Klobuchar.
Let's get back to serious day to day national politics with, at least, an attempt at serving the welfare of all citizens and reigniting international friendships. Enough of the bizarre amateur criminality.
Given the apparent intention of half of the Democrats' primary votes to select candidates (Sanders and Warren) who are so far left that make George McGovern (who lost forty-nine of fifty states) look moderate, I don't think we need to worry about Trump losing the popular vote. He would win that by a substantial margin against either candidate.
7
@Quiet Waiting Sanders beats Trump by 18 points right now. He isnt much left as all of you assume but he does put forth what majorities of all parties want, its the 1% who doesnt want it along with their corporate lackeys
3
@DG
That's right. Bernie is the People's choice. It's us against the corporate state with their media lackeys and lickspittles.
The real question of this 2020 election has nothing to do with Trump.
It is the question of whether our democracy is too far gone to allow the People's Choice to win.
Secondarily it is about whether the People have been too well programmed - and cowed - by the rich and their corporations to vote for a candidate that vows to take down the privileged rulers who have impoverished the majority of the People.
2020 will be a test of American courage and character.
We will soon see what Americans are made of. We will see if the Revolutionary spirit of 1776 is still alive.
You would have to say that, as of this moment, Trump is favored to win in November, not that he might manage to “snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.”
The math is simple and should be alarming to even the most progressive millennial supporting Sanders:
If Sanders is nominated, he will win the small “progressive educated youth vote,” but the Electoral College will be a slaughterhouse (likely Trump 538-0).
Even if Sanders were to win in NY, Massachusetts, California and Vermont by tens of millions of votes over Trump, you can still only collect those four state's 98 delegates once. If Trump won the other 46 states by just one vote each, Sanders would win the popular vote by tens of millions of votes but still lose the presidency to Trump in the EC by 440-98.
And if a “centrist” Democrat is nominated and the progressive youth in the party again petulantly sit on the sidelines? Perhaps closer, but likely the same outcome, with Trump and the Republicans having another 4 years to undermine our democracy, environment, etc., and to appoint conservative judges who will be deciding cases well into the second half of the century.
4
I'm seeing Amy Klobuchar easily winning swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, a good chance in Ohio and Florida, and maybe even flipping Texas and Arizona. I don't see Bernie or Pete being able to do that. Amy is the only candidate without a downside, and she would destroy Trump in a debate.
11
I’m beginning to agree.
@Jorge
Klobuchar is Clinton 2.1. Been there, done that.
California and New York are vitally important to any Democrat who runs for President, and they carry huge electoral clout, but they alone do not amass the electoral votes necessary to win a presidential election.
It may seem unfair to voters from California and New York that, with the South and much of the West tied up by Republicans, it falls to the Midwest to determine an election. So don't, please don't, pick a Democratic candidate that can just win New York and California, a candidate that appeals to your sense of justice and good policy. Pick a candidate who can win New York, California, New Jersey, Washington *AND* Wisconsinm, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. That candidate is not Bernie Sanders or Eliabeth Warren. Say "NO" to Socialists.
Bernie Sanders lost big in New Hampshire, barely winning a plurality. YOU DON'T WIN AN ELECTION IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WITH A PLURALITY.
Even if Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Biden and Bloomberg cannot reach a majority in the Electoral College, together they may be able to do so. I would expect their delegates to coalesce around a single candidate and VP, and those candidates will be two from among the following: Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Bloomberg.
Although it could change rapidly, today i would look for a Bloomberg / Klobuchar or a Bloomberg / Buttigieg ticket. Ask Michael Bloomberg who he would favor, or wait for more primaries to help make the decision for him.
11
@Logan , in 2016 Trump got only pluralities in almost all the primaries he won.
@Logan in 1992, Bill Clinton was 3rd place with 2.81% of the vote in Iowa. In New Hampshire, he received 24.78% of the vote, 2nd behind Paul Tsongas.
His first win over 30% was in Georgia. He did not begin to win greater than 30% of the vote until Super Tuesday. Even after that point, he regularly had victories in primaries below 50%.
In 2008, Obama won the Iowa Caucus with 37.6% of the vote, and the NH primary he got second with 36.5% of the vote. He lost the Nevada caucus with 45% of the vote, and won South Carolina with 55% of the vote.
For the primary as a whole, he lost the popular vote with 47.4% of the vote to Hillary's 48.1%, and he lost the primaries in Indiana (-1.12%), Ohio (-8.65%), Florida (-16.9%), Pennsylvania (-9.18%), Nevada (-5.7%), and New Hampshire (-2.6%). He proceeded to win all of those states in November by margins of 1.04%, 4.59%, 2.81%, 10.32%, 12.5%, 9.61%, respectively.
Primary election results do not determine General election results. You may be correct that Sanders (Warren is unlikely to survive through March) cannot win over WI, MI, OH, or PA, but if it's true, it's not because of the primary election results.
I happen to think it's not true, every time the Democrats have nominated a proud centrist in the past 20 years, they've lost. Obama won campaigning as a progressive and promising that his presidency would pave the way for an eventual single-payer healthcare plan, even if he recognized he wouldn't be the one installing it.
Well, one thing is for sure @Angus Burke: a Democrat who received a plurality in Iowa and New Hampshire has a good shot at becoming the Democratic candidate for president, but don't count Michael Bloomberg out of the equation.
One thing that is also for sure: If nominated by the Democrats, Bernie Sanders will fail spectacularly in the general election.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time a Socialist did well in a general election was 1932, when Noman Thomas garnered 2.23% of the popular vote.
I'm not saying a Dem with a plurality in Iowa and New Hampshire cannot win, only that Bernie Sanders' plurality was incredibly weak. He couldn't even break 30% in a neighboring state, where he earned, hold your breath because it's important, where he earned 60.4% of the primary vote in 2016.
Sorry, but Bernie Sanders is a fail. The Electoral College, in the end, will elect the next President of the United States. Funny thing, it won't be Bernie Sanders.
1
Let’s hope not. He isn’t doing a good job.
F for him
1
Two things:
2004 - John Kerry would have been president if he had prevailed in Ohio even though Bush would have had more popular votes.
States that want to apportion their electors are not going to do it on their own though. there needs to be an agreement with all the states.
3
Apparently, the authors have never read the U.S. Constitution. The President is elected by States - not by some form of national mob.
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The name of the country is "The United Stated of America", not "The United Individuals of America".
Isn't it time to stop promoting the bizarre theory that Trump didn't really win in 2016 - we have much better things to do, like getting enough electoral votes together in 2020, to make sure we are able to stop Trump from continuing to harm our nation.
Easter Bunny stories are of no help whatsoever; the job is to get Trump kicked out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue by the usual mechanism. Everything else is a distraction.
13
"Our conclusion is that even if the general population prefers the Democratic nominee by much more than was the case in 2016, Mr. Trump has almost a one-third chance of winning the Electoral College while ignoring the national vote but only about a one-fifth chance of winning the national popular vote as a route to winning the Electoral College."
If the general population prefers the Democratic candidate by more than it did in 2016, Trump still has a one-fifth chance of winning the national popular vote? Has Trump repealed math?
@Partha Neogy Popular support doesn't necessarily translate to voter turnout. If Trump's support drops to lets say 42%, many democrats will stay home, wrongly assuming that he'll be defeated regardless of their vote, while his supporters will show up in droves. That hurts the down ballot races too. The best Dem turnout will be if Trumps approval rating is in the 48-52% range.
Not this time. Sanders’ multiracial, multigenerational coalition is going to decisively win both the popular vote and the Electoral College on Election Day!
Bernie 2020
8
@Zareen Nice dream, man. And it's this irrational way of thinking that will lead to Trump winning again. Sanders will be lucky to get 10 states versus Trump. That is just a fact.
1
Just because you say it doesn’t make it a fact, buddy. And by the way, I’m not a man.
1
There have been at least five Presidential elections where the popular vote didn’t matter going as far back as the 1800’s with Bush and Trump being the most recent; yet, to this day the country still has not learned. The Electoral College is flawed; a handful of states do not represent the Nation or the will of the majority and should not dictate the results of an election or negate the popular vote. How does my vote even matter when nullified by the Electoral College? This time around the Democrats need to concentrate and win over the swing states more than ever to increase their chances of winning.
The Electoral College system is broken and drastic steps need to be taken to eliminate it sooner than later otherwise this cycle of unfairness and watering down of our Democracy will continue indefinitely.
9
Are the leaders of the Democratic Party reading this? I hope so. The focus for the democrats should be Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio. Whomever the democratic nominee is they should select the democratic governor of Michigan as Vice President.
6
@Oliver: Yes, I looked her up - agree, that would be a strong choice. So would Stacey Abrams or Cory Booker, for different reasons.
A red wave is coming like it or not. I engage a lot of different people where I'm from and I can tell you this. What Obama did to the Midwest angered many but they held back knowing what they had to do in 2016. That thing they did was vote, they did not burn universities, riot in the streets and cry a river of tears.
Sure many were uneasy about voting for Donald Trump because of the uncertainties of his presidency but they saw this as the lesser of two evils. Now that Trump has not only proved stable and has helped middle Americans they will undoubtedly vote for him again. The genius behind the electoral college is also a self regulating mechanism. If you look at all the major cities with the most problems they are liberal ran and have been for a long time. Allowing cities and rural towns a vote to help correct the wrongs of the liberals brings everything back to center.
5
@RS -- Anecdotal conversations with people in Missouri doesn't tell us much, as certain backward things like not expanding Medicaid and voting for Trump are givens-- sort of like poor whites in Tenn voting against their own interests. It's Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Penn, VA, Florida and Texas that will determine things. Trump barely won WI, Michigan, and Penn, and it won't happen again.
1
@RS Trump has proved stable? The man is a malignant narcissistic sociopath. His base is literally a cult, all you have to do is look at Germany in the '30s and Hitler. Its the same thing.
There are more people in this country who believe in the dems message and are sick of Trump breaking laws and corrupting the entire government ( State Dept. Justice).
I'm not saying the dem candidate will have it easy, but I think if we work hard we can win. Oh, all the dems have to say is Trump is ready to cut your SS and Medicare.
@RS I live in the hinterlands, and let me tell you there are problems aplenty---opioid addiction, low-wage jobs, and young people fleeing for those supposedly horrible cities. Uh-huh. Blame it all on the liberals.
1
I don't see Bernie Sanders as a poison pill to the presidency so long as he balances his ticket with someone who can connect with voters from the mid west with a proven track record during the primaries. Amy Klobucher, for example.
Clinton's failure to do exactly that was yet one more example of political malpractice that doomed her run.
4
I am bone tired of articles like these. Problem with Dems is that they don't get it. This whole impeachment thing was a huge confirmation for Trump that the entire Republican establishment is behind him. Did he really need it?
And don't get me started on Bernie. We're headed for a lose lose there. If he wins the nomination, Dems lose the general election. He loses the nomination, his supporters will sulk, stay home, and hand Trump another term. Bernie supporters don't care much for the Dem party as much as they care for Bernie.
8
@TK I, a middle-aged female Sanders supporter, am bone tired of being characterized as a "Bernie Bro" Bully who would rather watch my nation go down in flames than to support a candidate other than my first choice. Perhaps folks don't remember that Sanders campaigned much harder for Clinton than Clinton did for Obama. You may be right about Bernie supporters not caring as much for the DNC as for Bernie--perhaps that is because many of us are Independents who watch the DNC rig the election in favor of Clinton in 2016 and are seemingly swaying the 2020 (e.g. the Iowa Caucus). I vote for whomever I determine to be the better candidate, not for a political party. Taking a page from your book, Dem supporters don't care much for the citizens of the United States as they care for the corporate elite and for the DNC.
3
@TK
Trump's worst enemy is.....well.....is Trump. He was doomed from the beginning. Anyone who has an once of common sense knew a long time ago that he has no more compass, ethics, honor, or, respect for the law.
This was the case long before his huge compensatory ego construct turned towards politics as a way out of his increasingly huge financial troubles. What has been playing out in front of us is his inevitable self-destruction.
Mitch and the traitorous Republican Senate with Justice Roberts at the helm, rigged his impeachment trial and are now reaping what they've sown. Trump and the entire Republican Senate are, in effect, traitors to The Constitution.
Trump's current vendetta is no surprise, nor, is his reward for Roger stones silence by reducing his sentence, or, more likely, a presidential pardon. Mitch McConnell is revealed as a traitor, ditto the Senate Republicans (Romney excluded for now), as is Trump himself, Barr, and the list doesn't end there.
Trump is defecating on his dupe and stooge followers regularly and they continue to cheer and beg for more. It's starting to feel like a Three Stooges episode on a grand scale.
1
I think Trump will narrowly win the popular vote this time, and have one of the largest electoral victories ever. There are no good Democrat candidates, and as a result voter turnout will be low. And if there is one they didn’t want to burn themselves running against Trump. As far as the electoral college is concerned, it’s essential to give all states a say. If it didn’t exist 5 counties could elect a Democrat every election. If the electoral college goes away, so does the country. States will leave.
4
@JOSEPH Don't worry, no one can change the electoral college anytime soon, so Trump can win again without winning the popular vote. That's fine. For the Democrats, it's simple: Win back PA, MI and WI while holding other states won in 2016. That's the election right there, plain and simple. Other states truly in play? Maybe AZ and NH.
@JOSEPH Further to "states will leave." Where would they go? Texas was independent in the 1830-1840s, so there is a precedent for Texas. But Texas is a large state with plenty of popular votes (it's two electoral votes corresponding to senators are no big deal, same for other states with large populations). As for small-population states, e.g., those with only 5 or fewer electoral votes at present, they are AK, DE, HI, ID, ME, MT, NE, ND, NH, NV, NM, RI, SD, UT, VT, WV and WY, plus DC, or a total of 18 including DC. By my count, 9 of these 18 currently vote Democratic in national elections, and 9 vote Republican. So, who's complaining?
Good. The US would be far better off without the uneducated, unproductive, rural fascists who inflicted Donald Trump on the majority.
I am glad to see this analysis, as I've been glumly predicting this very scenario (Trump having a greater popular vote loss on the order of 7%, and yet winning the EC) for some time now. I like a lot of what the Democrats running have to say, and all of them are much more aligned with what we need right now than any trumpist, but he needs so very little to put him over the top in our current system, and that "very little" can easily only be his cultish base. Vote, organize, fight. But be ready for a long hard slog through dark times.
9
In Pennsylvania Mike Bloomberg has committed the nearly 100 headquarters he has set up for his candidacy to become available to whoever is the nominee for the Democrats. It is imperative that the nominee campaign vigorously in these states that Trump won. I underscore the word "vigorously" because we all know Trump will do anything--"Are you listening Russia?"--to win the Electoral College which should be abolished but that isn't going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. If the Democrat doesn't win, then we know that our democracy will have become a dictatorship which, apparently, is just what the GOP members of Congress are satisfied with!
7
"The system rewards him for focusing on a handful of states, located mostly in the Great Lakes region, with policies, promises and programs that may not resonate or even be consistent with the interests of all Americans."
"The interests of all Americans" !! --- As though there can be no disagreement on what that is.
Good luck with that.
3
Sorry, but until the Constitution is amended, the Electoral College total determines the winner of the presidential election. This argument only became an issue in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George W. Bush in the Electoral College. Before then there was no problem because the Electoral College always worked in the Democrats favor. But now it don't and that's all for the good of the country because the coastal elites, especially Californians, have no business dictating their politics and values to people living in "fly-over country." There is a distinct difference in the values of Americans living in interior of the nation and those living on the coast and most prefer those of "fly-over country." Thank you.
5
@Southern Boy So now we have a system where the people of fly-over country dictate their politics and values to everyone else. Why is that better, especially when there are more people in cities than in the country?
Oh, I get it... It's not an argument about fairness, but just a simple matter of whose politics you prefer.
Rural people, who are far from where the economic growth happens, where the scientific research occurs and the culture produced, shouldn't have a say over what the majority share of the population wants.
20
@Southern Boy So now we have a system where the people of fly-over country dictate their politics and values to everyone else. Why is that better, especially when there are more people in cities than in the country?
Oh, I get it... It's not an argument about fairness, but just a simple matter of whose politics you prefer.
Rural people, who are far from where the economic growth happens, where the scientific research occurs and the culture produced, shouldn't have a say over what the majority share of the population wants.
Also, you CSA folks are free to try leaving again, if that's what you prefer.
4
@Southern Boy Yeah except no, not "most"—just most people you know (the people voting against their own interests in the flyovers). The values of the states that don't touch water are in no way those of the majority of the country. California is grossly underrepresented in senate power, and popular vote power in the presidential election.
3
I’m sure Republicans would be just fine with winning the popular vote by 3 million votes, but the Dem who loses the election gets to be president anyway. And a vote counting 3X more if you live in New York than if you live in South Dakota, Wyoming or Arkansas.
5
Sure, trump can win by lying to the voters again, but most likely he and the republicans will try to win by cheating. it's worked so far. Voter suppression, voter role purges, interfering with the process are all tools already being implemented.
The battle for the country falls to ten states. The rest of us are chopped liver.
It's not productive, nor sustainable to have the country run by people elected by a minority. The senate is a good example of minority rule, so is trump. He's attacking the states that he feels aren't paying enough homage to his cruel policies.
The larger task in this election is waking up the sheep being led by to the slaughter house by trump and Fox media.
16
Yeah, what happened to the "50 State Strategy" that was constantly mentioned by Perez right after November 2106? I hope it is still in effect.Go to the hostile Trump territories and show up. Show them what Trump is actually doing to them. Steyer and Bloomberg better put their money where their mouth is after they do not get the nomination and flood these neglected states with ads. The moderate candidates who do not get the nomination NEED to go to the swing states to get the vote out. It needs to be all hands on deck. Don't push abuse of power or racism in the rural counties; attack his character and his ineptitude (see Bill Maher).
Start now.
6
Quit whining about the rules and play the game according to the rules. If Hillary had run a better campaign, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Ask senators what happens when long-held rules that exist for very good reasons get changed. No more filibusters on judicial appointments--thanks, Harry Reid--and, voila, Trump fills the federal judiciary with lifetime appointees who will shape rule of law in this country for decades.
As Sollozzo told his driver in The Godfather after the u-turn on the Brooklyn Bridge, "Nice work, Lou."
9
If only it was about numbers(like the good old days) Democrats could lighten up and work hard for the win. But 2020 is about how many votes you can lose and still win. Trumps plan is easy...stay with his 38%. Bernie's plan his to run on the strength of his bro's and forget about older voters, voters of color and everyone else that still blames him for Trumps victory in 2016 . As far as the remaining Dem's if they believe that if Bernie wins the primary we have lost, and worse, if Bernie loses we lose again just like 2016. Anyway between Trump and Bernie it is looking like no one will poll above the 30's
1
The popular vote does not count. Why would I and other Republicans bother to vote in New York, or California? In fact, many Democrats may not vote in those states either, predicting a foregone conclusion with them or without them. And who knows where the balance lies.
Mixing up the national popular vote with state by state voting is worse than useless: it gives voters the feeling that somehow the national vote has some meaning. Which I assume is your agenda.
5
@John Xavier III
Snap out it!
You get out there and vote
No Matter What.
If everyone was like you, how would anything change?
This election needs to be a clear mandate against Trump.
The only way to do that is to vote and get all your like minded friends/family to do the same.
The "electoral college" system will surely never change with your whiny poor is me attitude.
I suggest that electoral college voting reflect each state's outcome rather than being allotted by the national voting. Even in states where there is a "landslide" for one or the other candidate, it is generally not 80/20 or even 75/25 in the vote splits. Typically outcomes are within 10 percent of 50/50. This would require more attention in all states by candidates (and boost participation by voters) and without eliminating the college, would make it more representative of the popular vote. The current system of primaries is flawed, the states who tend to go republican are all reducing accessibility of voters, but since you can't gerrymander the vote for President, at least the final say reflects the will of the people who did vote.
3
Hilary proclaimed she would bury Trump in a mountain of electoral votes. So she knew what those were. She placed her bets on the North Eastern ocean states and the pacific states and she got them. But when you see the great red wave between, you understand why there is an electoral college. A few highly populated states should not be able to dictate to the rest of the nation. She also put states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, that do have a bunch of Electoral votes, on a back burner. After the nomination she never visited Wisconsin in the 102 days before the election. If Trump wins again with electoral votes, it will be because he doesn't ignore the country between the Atlantic and Pacific states and he has a message they like. But also because those in-between states don't see any reason to vote for whoever is the Democrat nominee.
5
@Ron And the NYT gave her a 95% chance of winning the day before the election.
1
Yes. The election will be won or lost in the swing states, and with the electoral college, not the popular vote. Fair or not, that's the way it is.
Which is why it is so critical to understand how badly the Democrats will lose if they run Bernie Sanders. Oh, don't get me wrong: he's got a lock on the big coastal cities. He'll knock the socks off of Trump in Berkeley and the Bronx. He'll rack up a nice popular vote victory.
But he will lose the election.
32
Hopefully Democrats understand this and will focus their efforts in swing states, unlike the last election.
13
Let’s say President Trump does win the Electoral College by a hair, but loses the popular vote by 8 million or more.
The question nobody then asks: Where, exactly, do those surplus Democratic voters live? And what does that mean for election results generally?
Some portion of those voters, and possibly a large one, will live in metropolitan areas of Republican-leaning states Trump presumably carries. Places like Charlotte, Phoenix, Atlanta, Des Moines, or suburban Kansas City on the Kansas side.
So we could easily see an outcome where Democrats expand their hold on the House, retake the control of the Senate, and lose the presidency although their candidate won the popular vote in something close to a landslide.
Then the question for Democrats in 2021 becomes: Do you impeach Trump a second time?
And before people scoff at that idea, consider Senate Republicans’ position in that scenario. Their strategy the first time was to stay with Trump until the last dog died — and then the voters hauled a bunch of their dogs into the voting booth and shot them. I don’t know that a GOP minority would go along with that strategy again.
7
Impeachment in the Senate requires 67 aye votes, not 51.
1
@Matt Your question: "Then the question for Democrats in 2021 becomes: Do you impeach Trump a second time?"
In brief: Yes!
1
Haven't many blue states already voted in the proportional voting model in their primaries? Many cities used to use proportional voting in which everyone gets a place at the table. I think Cambridge, MA still does. The answer is always in the numbers. Winner take all is only representational if you voted for the winner. How to get everyone to buy in?
%votes = %seats
or
%votes=%delegates
1
Fox news has the GOP diehards convinced that their electoral college wins/popular vote losses are a GOOD thing. They spout thing like "It's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic" as if learning a new word makes everything OK.
18
@Rick
Keep dredging up your utterly horrid candidates, and this will happen over and over. Looking forward to Donald Trump Jr., in 2024!
@Rick Yup. It's called when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.
The authors recommend that states "adopt various measures that link their own appointment of electors to the national vote" in order to incentivize candidates to campaign in every state, thus increasing voter turnout in current non-swing states so as to make the Electoral College result more closely reflect the national popular vote. However, the current swing states have no incentive to diminish their own electoral importance by adopting such a measure, while the red states are happy to deliver all of their electoral votes to the Republican nominee, and the blue states would only decrease their own electoral clout by awarding even a fractional popular-vote-proportional share of their electoral votes to a Republican. Thus, the recommendation appears to make no practical sense, although I would welcome an explanation of how it could actually succeed in accomplishing the result the authors suggest. Otherwise, since the obstacles to constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College are insurmountable, while the demographic composition of red and swing states is not likely to change dramatically anytime soon, and we have the same structural problem with the Senate, we appear to in serious danger of continued governance of the blue majority by a red minority for the foreseeable future.
8
@William A. Loeb
"we appear to be near the welcome advent of continued restraint on the blue majority by a red minority for the foreseeable future"
Fixed that for you.
“he stands alone among presidents in modern history”
I think we are now in post-modern history. When perceptions of facts straight-up diverge and anyone can pick and promote their own truths, the whole notion of history is up for grabs. What truths will historians choose to write about when they look back on this age? The answer hinges on the next presidential election.
7
@Kristin Sherry In 1958, I studied world history (actually, ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, followed by the Dark Ages and western Europe only for the next 1000 years) and I learned a lot. But our excellent teacher left for a better offer, and we ended up in American History with a history hating journalism major, who told us on Day 1, that he despised American history because it was being written by liberals and we would be studying patriotism instead, mostly Cleon Skousen and Ayn Rand. He also taught us that the Confederacy was in the right, and that we've had problems with crime ever since 1865. My own parents got rid of this teacher, but I suddenly became very unpopular as a senior in our ultra-conservative high school, somewhere in northern San Diego County. My classmates all loved this teacher. But in the past sixty years, a lot of them are now gone, due to their terrible living habits and many of the female classmates are widows. I had no idea that this "history teacher" was a harbinger of worse things to come.
I'm a bit baffled.
In 2016 we were told that the Electoral College provided Hillary with a "blue wall" that would be tough for any Republican, let alone Trump, to overcome because there were far more votes in deep blue states than in deep red ones.
Then we were told that the reason the Electoral Maginot Line fell was because Hillary was uniquely unlikeable and failed to win over voters who normally voted for Democrats in those states.
So how did we wind up here, where the authors are claiming that the Electoral College strongly favors the GOP?
10
@ALW515 it strongly favored the Republicans in 2016 also. Nate Cohn and Nate Silver both said as much at the time. Clinton ignored the warnings.
2
What this statistical model fails to consider is the fact that Donald Trump will never leave the White House voluntarily. Even if the electoral college does elect a Democrat by a landslide, in combination with a popular landslide, trump will simply declare the entire election fraudulent (as he did in the previously) and cancel the entire election. The Dems will quickly concede, as they always do, and it will be four more years of trump, or until he dies, which ever comes later. If necessary, John Roberts will intervene and the trump "supreme" court will declare the trump party candidate the winner. And that will be the end of elections in America, for the Trump party knows how to run the entire show whether they are the majority or the minority. But I don't think they will ever again be the minority. All that is left is to rename the party after Trump.
6
@JM , if he loses the electoral college, and does not concede, the secret service will escort him from the building. That doesn't mean he won't try something like this though. He'll be happy to stir up all kinds of violence to upset the election if he sees that it's in his interest.
@JM He'll leave. He'll have no choice.
@JM
I always get a charge out of reading these paranoic soundings of the 'Trump totalitarian' tocsin. It keeps me amused until Turner shows 'Seven Days in May' or 'Winter Kills' again.
What is really sad is the high percentage of non-voters especially when compared to other democracies.
Many states make it difficult to vote. Plus, the degree of apathy among many is depressing.
18
@Kevin Rothstein , the sad thing is, these nonvoters are the most politically disengaged among us, and the election could be determined by how many of them get out and vote.
In the short term, The Democratic Candidate must keep what we have and capture Wisconsin, Michigan, and Florida. They must register voters!!!
In the long term, both parties would benefit by changing to the Maine and Nebraska model: Electoral votes are proportionally awarded by the proportion or percentage of the vote won. This forces candidates to visit and work in all the states. The change honors the EC and the Popular Vote. For 2016, this mechanism was applied to the Official Results and Trump prevailed, but in a narrower manner. The lesson is to not to assume or take for granted, and by all means go there!
10
Seems like a lot of work to tell everyone what we already knew. But Trump is going up against a different candidate, and there will be a different outcome. Bernie beats Trump right now in the Six States, but that does not mean the popular vote is meaningless or does not count. You should be able to do both.
1
I am so tired of articles like this. We have a Union of States. and our Constitution specifies how the the Electoral College provides for preservation of our Union of States.
4
@NYT Reader
We used to be a union of states. Now we're a country with administrative units. The President isn't the President of the states, he's the president of the country. Last I checked, I was just as American as someone in Idaho, so I don't know why they get more of a say than I do just because nobody wants to live in their state.
31
@NYT Reader And the Constitution also provides a mechanism to be amended.
We no longer have a 3/5 rule; women can vote; Senators are now elected by the citizens of their states and not by state legislatures.
8
@Kevin Rothstein
True. The Constitution can be amended, and an amendment is needed. I agree. Articles should be about an amendment and pretending that HRC won because she won the popular vote.
1
The trump party knows exactly what to do and they are magnificent at it. I fear the democrats on the other hand see what's going on but are clueless how to deal with what is obvious. Let's hope they learn quickly because right now it don't look too good!
4
The Electoral College, while flawed, just isn't going to go away anytime soon. It may have made sense in the beginning stages of our elections, but now does not. Changing the makeup of the delegates to reflect the actual population of each state does make sense, and has a better chance of happening than scrapping the EC altogether. But nothing will happen before this election, one of the most consequential elections of our time. To unseat Trump there will have to be a concerted effort by the Democrats to register more voters and to lobby the EC delegates. If the Iowa caucuses are any indication of Democratic will and organization we're in trouble. Defeating Trump and Trumpism rises above all internecine issues.
10
Four Republicans won the electoral college while losing the electoral vote: Hayes, B. Harrison, GW Bush and Trump. No Democrat has done so.
11
The democrats will lose by not being populists. They will be corporate.
3
@Chris -- sorry, but way before your prediction happens (i.e., it won't), the republicans will lose by not being democratic. They'll lose because they're fascists.
1
@Ken
Like they're losing now??
You can't be a do-nothing moderate and sit on your hands and hope fascism will just go away. Instead you have to make it happen.
The moderates did nothing for the past few decades and that opened the door to fascism. The Republicans just walked right in.
Every generation fascism rears its ugly head - you have to act decisively against it. Moderate appeasement does not work; that ends in a World War where millions die.
Let's get our of our cushy chairs and stop it right now because it won't just go away.
1
Dems, a word of advice: Learn how to win in the critical electoral college states. Stop whining about the EC system. Why is it Dems always want to change the rules when they are losing? They don't like the Supreme Court? Propose packing the Court with additional justices. Can't win at the EC? Discard it and replace with a national popular vote. Good thing that they aren't in charge of football rules. Keep getting outscored in games but you earn more yardage than opponent? Then change the rules so that the team with the most yardage wins the game. Learn how to win with the rules as they are. Try it for once, or twice, or ...
7
@JP Consider that except in 2004 and 2010, the Democrats have won more votes for the House, Senate, and Presidency than Republicans in every election since 2000. Yet for most of that time, they didn't control any of them.
How does that work out? It would be a game of football where the rules say one team gets 3 extra players, and you can bet that team would complain to the ref about it.
3
@JP Mitch McConnell changed the rules. Changing the rules is a bipartisan phenomenon.
2
@JP what will your response be, I wonder, when 30% of the population elects 70% of the senate due to population patterns (btw, that's predicted to happen by around 2030). How can any political party, even when popular with 70% of the population, ever implement its policies under such conditions? Would wanting to change that be "changing the rules when they are losing" ?
2
This analysis points out the importance for Democrats to wage this battle across the country with sufficient resources to contest every state and with a candidate and a running mate that can appeal broadly. In addition, they need to have sufficient energy and resources to hold the House and to flip the Senate. There is much discussion of the loyalty of Trump voters. There is also the evidence from the 2018 election that opposition to Trump is deep and wide and that Congressional races will be regarded as equally important as the presidential contest.
Nothing Trump has done has reduced the loathing that Democrats and many independent voters feel for Trump and given his arrogance and zeal to double down on his outrageous acts, there is plenty to come before November to energize Democrats.
Nevertheless, I fear that if the Democrats lose this election, four more years of Trump will be the end of our experiment in democracy. Regarding the thesis that Trump could win in 2020 with an even greater deficit in the popular vote, I don’t think the winners of the popular vote would accept that outcome. I would expect uprisings across the country. That might only hasten Trump’s consolidation of authoritarian power, but considering the general belief that Trump is a serial cheater and that his regime would eagerly accept foreign interference in this election, I think that a major popular vote loss combined with an electoral college win would be regarded as illegitimate by that majority.
8
It's rather obvious that Hilary greatly failed by not campaigning personally in key swing states. This contributed to Trump winning a great deal.
No candidate will make that mistake this time around. I expect the Dem nominee will set up their home base in one of the key rust belt states (MI,WI,PA).
Yes, the electoral college is 'unfair'. So is being President. If a candidate can't figure out how to compete in the electoral college they won't make a capable President.
4
@Steve
It's only the moderates that lose in the six states - that doesn't apply to Progressives. Bernie already has those six states in the bag against Trump, right now.
Doesn't even need the moderate vote for him to win.
Bernie also gets the popular vote as he's beaten Trump nationally for 5 years now.
Moderates cannot win against Trump without the progressives, but the progressives can win without the moderates.
2
@Fourteen14
"Moderates cannot win against Trump without the progressives, but the progressives can win without the moderates." Progressives may be able to scratch out pluralities in the 20-30% vote levels in the Democratic primaries, but that level of support won't be enough to win in a NATIONAL election. Bernie is not going to make it to the end with just the "Bros" - period!
1
@Joanna Whitmire
1) You are parroting the mainstream corporate medias' talking points without doing your own research.
Check the current polling - Bernie wins nationally against Trump, and in the six states and the Electoral College. That's today, now, with zero Moderate votes. They're still set on their own candidates that do not win against Trump in the six states and probably never will. Hillary did not win in 2016 and she had it all going for her.
2) "Bernie Bros" is another mainstream talking point designed to disparage the People who won't vote to increase their corporate profits at the People's expense.
Do the research and you will find that Bernies' majority of supporters are the young, women, people of color, and the working class - not the mythical "Bernie Bros."
And did you know that more young women supported Bernie in 2016 than Hillary?
1
Add to that a Republican Senate who’s 53 seat majority only represents 44% of the population. Four of the last supreme court justices appointed by electoral college winners. The right has been working on this for 40 years. This is why despite all polls, which almost universally show that people support progressive ideas we have a dysfunctional government. This legacy will impact us for years. So yes let’s buy all means get rid of Donald Trump but there is so much more work to be done beyond that. Read the book Democracy in Chains it will open your eyes.
21
Gentlemen,
If your model is based on history, how do you normalize for candidates not campaigning in states where they have no chance of winning. In other words, do you assume that if Trump campaigned in CA that it would not have changed anyone’s mind to vote for him? That’s seems highly unlikely. Until you can normalize for this fact with some accuracy, your model is not particularly accurate or useful. Your just making another tired argument to eliminate the electoral college. Come on, you can do better.
1
Trump can win by concentrating his campaign in a handful of states. That's what he'll do then. So, the Democrats need to establish a line of defense in those states and get to work. Go to Hollywood to get money...go to Michigan to get votes.
290
@Harley Leiber
Bernie already has the money and he already beats Trump in those Six States. It is only the moderates who do not have the money and cannot beat Trump in the Six States.
The problem is that the moderates would rather self-righteously lose, rather than fight to win. This is because they are Republicans at heart, and prefer Trump. They just don't have the courage to admit that they are corporate Democrats that care more for their cushy chairs than they do for justice.
11
@Fourteen14 That's an unfair assessment of the moderates. Do I want Bernie to win? Absolutely. Will I vote for a "moderate"? Absolutely. Because the moderates you speak of still support the vast majority of ideas held by Bernie - they just differ in how they'd be enacted. Once we get a nominee, please stand behind them regardless. We'll continue to fight for the right policies - and don't forget that those policies will have to pass through the meat grinder of congress before becoming law. Vote blue no matter who.
32
@Harley Leiber
All candidates, always, have concentrated campaigns in a handful of states. The states tend to change with each election. Michigan, most likely, won't decide the election in the same way that it and other Midwest states did in 2016. The problem, always, is that generals insist on fighting the last war instead the one at hand.
You gotta get real. Squawking by Sanders and Warren aside, the economy is going gangbusters, and that's what counts to most voters. A lot of folks who went Hillary last time are going to go Trump this time out of their own sense of self interest. Wake me up when this broad coalition of black people and brown people and beige people and poor people actually shows up at the polls in numbers sufficient to defeat the incumbent. That kind of talk is as old as elections are.
Trump doesn't have to make that many inroads to black voters to nullify the D's. Remember, he got more black votes than Romney did running against Obama in 2012. And turnout for D's in New Hampshire and Iowa fell far short of turnout when Obama was on the ballot. That doesn't bode well for a groundswell.
5
Eliminating the electoral college will. Never. Happen. You need a constitutional amendment ratified by 75% of the states. Forget it. Move on. Far more realistic is proportional electoral voting. Look at the breakdown of the state's vote, then assign the electoral votes by rounding to the nearest percentage that is relevant to their number of electors. Simple. Doesn't even need a constitutional amendment. I don't know where this 'winner take all' crud even started, but it's become a thorn in everyone's side, and it isn't fair.
378
@Liz Thanks, Liz. Please note that Maine already does this. The rounding rule gets complicated, especially with three or more candidates. See "Huntington-Hill" for a mind-bending workout. Whatever the controversy on the rounding rule, your suggestion has great merit!
14
@Liz If I could recommend your comment 1000 times I would do it! Statistically, that's the way to go. For example, of the 55 California electoral votes, Hillary would have won 34 or 35, Trump 17, others 3 or 4, depending on the allocation rule. If you apply that concept, probably Trump would have won anyway (there is always an advantage for winning a state) but his margin would have been even smaller and easier to counter-balance in a future election. Having proportional votes would gives incentives for a candidate to get his message everywhere (and not only in "purple" states)
16
@Liz
A better solution is the current proposal under which states that sign on would commit their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. They are close to having states with an aggregate of 270 electoral votes on board. (Of course, this would have to be re-committed to each time electoral votes were re-apportioned nationally if the mix <270.)
17
Dems..... Focus solely on the swing states. Put an army to work at getting people to the polls. Enlist Bloomberg's help whether he is the nominee or not. He seems to understand this strategy.
501
@c agreed. The three most important things the democrats need are to win the swing states, win the swing states and win the swing states.
It is front and center ahead of any progressive programs the democrats want because without winning the swing states they will not be able to implement any progressive programs.
82
@c
And to that end, there need to be more efforts like the current one in Milwaukee to get African American male voters, in particular, to the polls in Midwest and Southern urban areas (Milwaukee, Racine, Detroit, Flint, Jacksonville, Miami, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc.).
Not that the DNC shouldn't be test chaining and phone banking and carpooling and lawyer-hiring (because you know there will be enhanced voter suppression tactics) to get out all the potential vote, but these are the voters whose absence in 2016 after their presence in 2008/12 most resulted in losing Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and remember, Obama took Florida twice and even North Carolina and Indiana once).
47
@Paul
That's what I tried to tell Bernie or Bust people; If you insist on "All or Nothing" you're going to get a whole lot of the latter.
And along with concentration on swing states, they all need to push judges. If we don't have judges in the SCOTUS and elsewhere, that means we'll still get absolutely nothing done.
36
This is a stupid article. If you have to explain how the Electoral College works, trying to explain it's reason for being can not be understood.
Democrat voters in 6 states can run up the popular vote, but, they do not have an equivalent EC number. You can see this on the voting maps of Obama and Trump. On the Obama map, 90% of the country was red. No one looking at the map would believe Obama won. Trump's map was very similar, but, he captured just enough votes in a few states to drive up his EC numbers.
If every Democrat voter wants the EC gone, name the Democrat politician that introduced the Constitutional Amendment legislation to remove the EC. No one has. And, no one will.
@Mike You're wrong. In 1969, Rep. Emmanuel Cellar (D-NY) introduced a bill that would have abolished the Electoral College and replaced it with a different system. It passed the House with bipartisan support. Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN) introduced it in the Senate, and President Nixon (R) indicated he would sign it. It was defeated via filibuster by conservative Senators from the South and from a handful of small states.
11
I really wish people would stop running these pieces. We get it—he could win again. How many times do we have to revisit what *could* happen?
I'd also appreciate not reading another piece in which a reporter interviews Trump supporters for their very special opinions. That one's been beaten to death.
6
How sad this insightful column is. The boring, backward midwest will likely once again put vile Donald Trump into the White House.
The Iowa caucuses were so illustrative of the region. An out-of-date practice, run by "homespun" folks "wise" in their simple ways, was a complete fiasco.
The midwest better figure itself out. Because it is becoming the region of the country nobody wants to be part of. People go south for sun and low taxes, west for fresh air and opportunity, the northeast and New England for culture and power.
I ask readers. Have any of you ever met anyone in your life who said "I'm going to the midwest for vacation this summer?"
It's almost as if the region is using its stagnation as a kind of cynical, negative impetus to screw up the rest of the country.
Thanks, folks.
14
@History Guy
Well, to be fair, if you want to be a hog caller or a corn farmer, the place to be is the Midwest.
1
With 86 percent reporting, Trump earned 117,462 votes in the New Hampshire Republican primary, more than twice the 49,080 primary voters who voted for former President Barack Obama in the New Hampshire primary in 2012.
“Enthusiasm for Donald Trump is through the roof!” wrote Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale on Twitter.
“President Trump has surpassed the New Hampshire Primary vote total of every incumbent President running for re-election over the last four decades,” he wrote on Twitter on Tuesday night as the New Hampshire Primary results came in.
1
@KR Sorry, bud, but primary turnout doesn't necessarily predict turnout in the general.
Also, what do you expect Trump's campaign manager to say? He's hardly a neutral source.
3
@KR
Interesting. The Democrats vote, i.e., the *not* Trump primary vote, was 218,111.
I guess what you are saying is that Trump didn't more than a handful votes as the presumptive nominee but all these people voted for him.
“Enthusiasm for Donald Trump is through the roof!” You mean like the crowd size at his inauguration?
Since Trump & Co. lie about everything, and it is hard to have a perspective from within the invite, only Trumpers rallies, I reserve the right to disbelieve all "truthful hyperbole" from Trump and his minions.
Don't hate the player. WIN THE GAME.
5
Is this a new revelation? This is our system- unfortunately
1
Critical Question:
Where are the 3 Republicans who are challenging Trump: former governors Bill Weld and Mark Sanford, and Entrepreneur Rocky De La Fuente?
Given that these formal candidates loathe Trump, they should be waging campaigns that proclaim not only where they stand on the issues, but also their fervent, justified belief that, for the sake of the nation, Trump must be Defeated in November.
In case these Republican candidates need motivation, they should reread what Trump Tweeted about them last August 27: "Can you believe it? I’m at 94% approval in the Republican Party, and have Three Stooges running against me...."
Get moving, Mssrs Weld, Sanford, and De La Fuente (and John Kasich, too).
Exercising your bullhorns against Trump is as important to the nation as to you.
14
The level of “taker state” status should determine how many electors it receives.
4
Plus he has carte blanche now to call up his dictator allies around the world in full view of the American people and urge/threaten them to help him do this with the risk to them of losing our aid.
8
@Tom
That's typical moderate thinking. It is loser thinking. That's why even Democrats don't want to vote for Democrats. Stop whining and work harder. That's what the Progressives do.
This op-ed hits the nail on the head. I will wager that Trump loses the popular vote by perhaps as many as 5 million votes and is re-elected based upon the EC at which point he will declare that there was massive voter fraud as in 2016. There's your result - I have just saved everyone a bunch of angst between now and November. No thank yous are necessary.
6
I wish the overly vocal left wing of the Democratic Party would read these articles instead of just the ones with the words, "Bernie Sanders" in the headlines. I wish they would really digest what states are necessary to eject this dangerous wannabe despot from office. You would have to defy all logic to think Bernie Sanders is going to win states like PA, FL, MI, or WI. Sanders' hubris could once again going to hand this election to Trump.
9
Another article about the electoral college. We need to know what could be done about it.
3
@mary bardmess
Well, you could get behind Bernie because he already beats Trump in the Electoral College.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood this, but the authors appear to say that Trump has at best a 31 percent chance of being reelected. If I read that right, then I'd have to say "garbage in, garbage out" with respect to their modeling. It's clear that Trump's chance of being reelected is at least 50-50. Did I simply misunderstand what I read?
2
Which is all why Klobuchar is the electoral college frontrunner. Neither Mayor Pete or Bernie are really 50-state candidates. That’s why turnout is so lousy in a year that Democrats should be breaking records. Neither Iowa or New Hampshire are unusual. They are in fact typical of the states that must be won to win the electoral college, and “Bernie the socialist” will never be competitive in Fla, OH, NC, PA, or MN in a general election for electoral college votes. It’s sad and pathetic that Buttigieg being married to man means every state from Fla to Az is a lost cause, but it’s true.
The sad fact is no one is running for President, they are all running for the electoral college. When you look at it that way, it’s easy to see why the “dreaded moderate” is the only hope to unseat an unfit President. The electoral college should be abolished, but till November that is the game.
163
@Revoltingallday Bernie won the MN primary in 2016.
4
@Revoltingallday
Which is why Klobuchar will make a solid running mate for Bloomberg (even though two Northerners on the same ticket goes against the conventional wisdom).
1
@Revoltingallday
Sanders beats Trump in every state you cited save Florida -- where they are tied. Furthermore, most of this same data is not current and does not reflect Sander's recent rise in national polling, where he now leads Biden. As a result, I suspect he polls even better against Trump than the RCP polls are showing.
4
It is crucial that all Democrats vote in November even if they live in deep blue or deep red states that are not contested. The popular vote will matter! Even if Trump wins the electoral college, the more lopsided is the popular vote against him, the less legitimacy his reactionary policies will have and the greater the pressure will be to reform an obsolete system.
9
As this data analysis makes clear, it's not so much that the electoral college is conceptually unfair, it's that it incentivizes candidates' focus on a limited number of states and an even more limited number of variables within them. When the probability of winning the electoral college is greater with such an approach rather than through broad appeals to the body politic, what politician in their right mind would waste their time, money and energy using lofty bipartisan rhetoric to try to "unite" the nation?
Trump's victory in 2016 proved that in the digital age micro-targeted identity politics, delivered through algorithmically-optimized news feeds to an already-committed base, wins the day. The conventional strategies of persuasion no longer apply because persuasion is no longer the goal. Trump and FOX are well ahead of the Democrats in operationalizing this, and in using data-driven disinformation campaigns to connect emotionally with primarily older, white, non-college educated folks in this year's electoral swing states. Love it or hate, it's techno-ethno-nationalist electoral populism on steroids, and the new political reality.
13
Food for thought. If America were a real representative democracy, one person one vote, it must let the candidate with the most votes become president. The current Electoral College is an aristocratic residue that has nothing to do with democracy; it was proposed and used to prevent an 'ignorant majority' to defy the wisdom, and interests, of an elite unwilling to give up their power. Nowadays, this is a Damocles sword we must cut, unceremoniously, so fairness (justice) in elections is restored. The question that remains is: do we have the will to change for the better, a rational answer for an emotional stance that would hand the presidency to a charlatan instead of a well prepared, dedicated to service, honest, and decent individual, that can take us forward, and unite instead of dividing us? Let's wake up folks, 'it's later than you think'.
9
@manfred marcus Didn't the Founding Fathers create the EC to ensure that voters in agricultural/rural areas would have a say in selecting the POTUS? A direct democracy would, I believe, favor highly-populated urban areas.
1
how do you counter trump's strategy? if it is so simple let democrats focus those states with forceful messages to confuse voters so that his base turns on the other direction. of course democrats should energize all their supporters where they are very popular. the math may not be that simple. trump may threaten election officials and may not accept the result if he does not win.
1
I think it is clear that Trump will not leave office, even if he loses both the popular and electoral college votes. We are seeing Trump 2.0 unleashed post-impeachment and I don't see any forces to stop him, given the total subservience of the GOP to his will.
To repeat what a NYT reader posted a few weeks ago, Trump is now limited only by his imagination and the laws of physics.
7
President Trump did not create the Electoral College system.
If he is using it as designed, I see nothing wrong with that. Also, I give my support to him from neighboring Canada, even though I cannot vote for him. I wish we had a Prime Minister Trump here, instead of a wishy-washy, vacillating
Justin Trudeau.
He is the best thing to happen to the US to weed out the stale, anti-American elements in Washington DC.
1
If Trump were a popular president; that is, popular with the Democrats, this discussion would not be taking place.
The fact that he has used a standing construct, the electoral college, to his advantage is anathema to those who hate him. Too bad.
The Democratic candidates are trying to woo black and hispanic voters with their proposed programs. They are trying to manipulate voters also. Show me the difference.
3
The Electoral College was a dreadful and deadly idea from the outset, a fact Madison and Jefferson knew by the election of 1800. Ironically, it was ostensibly designed to prevent despots from conning voters despite the reality that few citizens voted at the inception of the Republic, but in truth it persuaded the slave south to join the nation since it meant that a smaller population of voters could still reach the White House. Now, after the election of W. Bush and now Trump the Electoral College looms as the greatest impediment to democracy. Plain and simple, when the will of the majority is denied by the government intended to serve it it’s the duty of the majority to overthrow the government. Another Trump popular loss and we will have arrived at the Jeffersonian moment: tyrants, patriots, the tree of democracy watered.
24
@Naked In A Barrel it's amazing how this issue of the electoral college has laid bare how a sizable number of Americans actually do NOT believe in democracy. It's very interesting. They keep saying things like "it's a republic" etc. etc. Then you drill down, find out they do believe in democracy - but they still prefer this strange, antiquated anti-democratic idea. Methinks what they really care about is power. And if a particular idea, like the EC, helps them retain power, then great, they're for it. But if not, they're against it.
1
Until the rules are changed and geography is no longer allowed to dictate to the majority, we will continue to have minority rule in this country.
22
If we can't scrap the Electoral College altogether, and I'm not even completely convinced we should, could we at least reform it by giving each state electoral votes based on the size of its population instead of the size of its Senate/Congressional delegation?
By including each state's senators in its EC count we triple the power of Vermont, Montana, and Wyoming and give every other small state more than its fair share of power.
I don't have a problem with the small states having extra power in the Senate. The Senate is a brake on action more than an initiator of it.
But the president initiates and implements policy and needs to be chosen democratically.
7
Unfortunately, too many liberals are so focused on the "unfairness" of the electoral college that they fail to grasp that these are the rules we have, and we need a candidate that can win within them.
8
@Brian H.
And just who, now let's think about it long and hard, who is the King of Crying Unfair?
The "liberals"? I think not.
7
@Brian H.
No, we need NPV as the path to fairness.
@Brian H.
That's right but no moderate can win within those rules. The moderates would rather whine about the unfairness of it all and self-righteously lose. Since they are Republicans at heart, they win when Trump wins.
Moderates like to go on about justice for all but they will not bestir themselves from their cushy chairs to make it happen.
Progressives do not whine, they knock on doors and that's why Bernie beats Trump in the Six States right now, today.
Candidates ignore the national popular vote because there is no contest for the national popular vote. It doesn’t count. There are no national elections; there are only state and local elections.
States should take the names of presidential candidates off their November ballots and let the Electoral College function as the founder intended. Placing the names of presidential candidates on the November ballots only empowers political parties and distorts the turnout for state and local elections.
George Washington warned us against political parties. He said,
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” Rule by political party is tearing America apart. If we continue on the present path, the party in power will on day outlaw the opposition party.
If we did away with the popular vote for president, presidential candidates would no longer need political parties to finance multi-billion-dollar campaigns. They could limit their campaign to stops at the 50 state capitol buildings, where they could address the legislators who appoint electors to the Electoral College. The 538 votes cast in December by electors at their state capitals determine who becomes president.
2
Two observations:
1. The media are complicit in underplaying the importance of swing states by touting national popularity polls that are becoming increasingly unable to reflect state results. In 2016 national polls predicted Clinton would win the popular vote and... she did.
2. A strategy to energize young voters works where there are young voters. The swing states have been losing younger voters to the coasts for some time and as was shown in 1972, the results can be catastrophic. The good news is that many in the Democratic Party seem to recognize the conundrum. The problem is that the progressive true believers could sit out the election, just like many did in 2016 if their candidate isn't on the ballot in November.
Trump's chances are going up...
27
Absolutely true. The swing states will decide the election. And that dictates that in order to win the Democrats must nominate a centrist. Any other path will further endanger the American democracy.
Save the big plans for 2024.
54
We covered a lot of paper describing the problem only to jump right over plausible solutions. Do you mean proportional allocation of electors? Do you mean winner-takes-all but based on a national vote rather than a state vote? You need to be more specific. I'm not sure what "various measures" means.
We have the ability to change state voting law through ballot initiative. However, I'd need a blue print on what we might pass in such an initiative. There's simply not enough information provided here.
5
@Andy
NPV (National Popular Vote)! Read about it, if you need more info.
"Any president presumably would like the legitimacy and historical validation conferred by a national popular vote victory." Wow. This statement could only come from someone who has not been paying attention to Trump the last few years. Trump would LOVE to win an Electoral College victory and lose the popular vote, again. He absolutely relishes hearing Democrats gnash their teeth and wail about losing an election while winning the popular vote.
9
Why on earth would Mr. Trump change anything? The man is on a roll and America is as well thanks to him.
4
@Thomas Aquinas ;
I 'spose from the cheap seats one can't see the cliff...
3
@Thomas Aquinas The roll was started under Obama. Unemployment has been dropping for the past 10 years, Trump has been president for the past four. The sun hasn't failed to come up in the last four either. Should we give him credit for that? His accomplishments? Increasing the pollution of our air and water, alienating our allies, betraying the Kurds (10,000 dead fighting Isis for us), and falling in love with our enemies, including one who had an American tortured to death. We need to stop the roll.
6
@Thomas Aquinas
It is impossible for King Don Jon to change for the better. If anything, he will only get worse, doubling down on what has worked for him his entire life.
Sometimes you just have to do it yourself.
Why not ask the wealthy liberals to sponsor businesses and buyup towns in these rural swing states and move the voters and families you need there. You know that there a legions of youths that would love a opportunity to rehabilitate a small town with hand made goods/ tech start ups and bring infrastructure. Why not bypass the idea of winning an electoral election and build up your infrastructure by giving opportunity to voters from the blue states to build up a network of like minded business owners in these dying rural areas.
2
@Travis Not really the way a capitalist economy works. What you are talking about is socialist redistribution of wealth which the red states already take advantage of.
https://www.businessinsider.com/red-states-are-welfare-queens-2011-8
2
We need to make the Electoral College and the Senate more representative of America. One step in this direction is admitting 2 new states: Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico. This requires only a simple majority in the House and the Senate, and the signature of the President.
This would likely provide a shift of 4 Senators toward the Democrats, as well as adding more ethnic diversity.
This would also likely provide a 1% shift toward Democrats in the Electoral College. (DC is already in the Electoral College courtesy of the 23rd Amendment.)
If in January 2021 there is a Democratic President with a Democratic House and Senate, this should be the first priority. Once it is done, it is irreversible.
12
@AKJersey concur with Wash DC. But if you add Puerto Rice, then you have to include our other territories _ Guam (where America's day begins), American Samoa, Northern Marianas Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands into statehood too. Why only Puerto Rice and not the other four territories?
1
If the democratic party could just explain the difference between waiting and weighting to prospective voters, then the whole electoral college problem could be solved. For example, instead of spending billions on political advertising in Midwestern states, just offer democratic party leaning voters in blue urban bastions monetary support to move to Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc. The only problem is that folks tend to become less progressive outside of progressive urban centers so the return on investment could be hit or miss.
4
@Michael Berndtson
I've often though of that too. Why not ask the question of how many people it will take to flip those states and offer "opportunity" centers there by liberal business owners with the recourses to help set up them up. I don't know give those rural places, art galleries schools, and artisanal businesses that can operate as shipping hubs etc. for a net work/ underground railroad of sorts and build up a Democratic infrastructure. It might be seen as stacking the deck but the GOP cheats and Lies every darn day. I'd do it. Count me and my vote there.
3
There is something inherently wrong with a system that requires almost a super majority to win a majority vote for one party while allowing a win for the other for not even needing a majority.
You can go on about the Electoral College and "original intent" (unless you are willing to eliminate parties don't talk to me about so-called "original intent") to protect smaller states from larger states, and I might buy it if, IF the Electoral College had done it's job and rejected a demagogue for president, which WAS part of its original intent.
72
What is the lesson from Iowa that is relevant to this discussion? Sanders loses the delegate count, complains about the “rules,” and declares victory. Then he wins the popular vote in NH, and declares victory. Lesson? Democrats are willing to change the Electoral College - the rules - simply “to win.” This is clear to those of us residing in fly-over states, and we will never vote for it. This is just a marketing ploy most of us can see through, designed to fire up a coastal base.
10
@LTJ Basically you're saying you don't believe in the "one person one vote" concept of democracy. It is splendid for you that, for example, 600,000 people in Wyoming have 2 senators and 39,000,000 people in California have the same. You seem to believe in the Constitution, but it has been amended numerous times. You seem to believe it should never be amended to more fully support democracy. And you proudly display your contempt for regions where most of our people live.
7
The Electoral College has allowed for near equal sharing between the two major parties since WWII. In the last 70-plus years, we've seen almost every election cycle give the party in Executive power two terms and then relinquish it to the other party for their two terms (only two exceptions being 1980 and 1988, which is pretty good for nearly 3/4 of a century). Should we ever go to single-party rule, by either Democrats or Republicans, the probability of a revolution of some kind would almost certainly increase. That would be...unfortunate.
5
@Independent Observer - "the probability of a revolution of some kind would almost certainly increase"
I don't buy it for an instant. Our so-called "2nd amendment people" who say they need guns to protect us from tyranny have instead been vocal supporters of tyranny and fight to protect it. That seems to be because they have come to believe that tyranny is not lawless authoritarianism (and maybe they can get a bit of that for themselves) but having to accept the freedom of others.
19
@Marie I personally think that Trump is a travesty and was only elected due to Hillary's campaign ineptitude (although I equally disliked her as well). That said, none of my Constitutional Rights have been taken away from the current President...not a single one. However, many of these Democratic candidates have chosen to propose disarming/confiscating the firearms of millions, if not tens of millions in our population. Some of these candidates have also said that they'll try to harass petroleum companies and the NRA, all of which comes across as much more tyrannical than Trump's shenanigans.
2
@Independent Observer
Yeah... I vividly remember when Obama confiscated millions of guns and declared NRA illegal.
2
Shouldn't voter turnout be paramount? The electoral college obviously is a disincentive to democratic participation.
Seems like a no brainer.
36
@Gord nothing in politics is a "no brainer". That pitiful saying only highlights the extent that it is not a "no brainer".
1
The Electoral College Strategy is poorly understood in most of America. The media, and especially social media, has an enormous effect on popular opinion and this reality is ignored. Media pundits obsess over non issues and gaffs from extreme and interesting candidates from both parties, obsess over missteps that are now twenty years old, forgive actual missteps from our elected officials, and meanwhile we face a real threats against Democracy from the Electoral College. A handful of voters in mid western states are easily manipulated by disinformation. Not a way to run an election.
89
@et.al.nyc Not a great way to run a country either.
such a thin bit of analysis, and a large slice of fear mongering.
The electoral college generally reflects the states' populations. Even by their own odds, it can happen but unlikely.
4
@Joe Game There is only one reason we have the electoral college (be sure to read the history on this) the Slave States insisted on it or they would not join the union. Full stop.
1
Which is why the National Popular Vote Compact needs to be enacted in enough states. It won't be in time for November, but the tally of states that have so far enacted it is rising. The Compact retains the Electoral College and is therefore Constitutional. For states that have enacted it, their electors are obligated to choose the national popular vote winner.
123
But the stolen Court has taken up whether those s'electors can even be forced to vote a certain manner. If they decide as I would expect such a thoroughly-corrupted Court that gave us Corporations Untied to, then even the possibility they'll respect our vote AT ALL, let alone mandated by NPVIC, will be on life support. It'd make our current situation with the pro-slave s'Electoral College look like a ranked-choice European democracy.
@Grant
If he wins in November, I doubt we'll be actually voting come 2024.
15
@Grant
National Popular Vote Compact. Last time I checked, that rhymed with "dead in the water."
so based on your statement: "Mr. Trump has almost a one-third chance of winning the Electoral College while ignoring the national vote but only about a one-fifth chance of winning the national popular vote as a route to winning the Electoral College." Trump will lose the election no matter what he does. This corresponds to my take of the 2016 election - people being tired of BUSH-CLINTON-OBAMA and having a hatred of Mrs. Clinton led to a Trump victory, though only by 70k votes. This election will be lost by Trump because there are so many more people who hate the trumpster or are tired of him.
15
@john graham
I would like to agree with you, but that's exactly the same thinking that led everyone to believe he would lose in 2016. We just didn't want to believe that the GOP was so far gone. But, as we saw this past week, neither the party nor its adherents have any principles left.
36
@john graham This also assumes he won't use more cheating tactics because he will. The Senate is blocking election security measures put forth by the house. The Republicans will go further to ensure they win.
12
Even a Trump win would not energize Americans enough to insist that their elected representatives start the constitutional amendment process to get rid of the Electoral College once and for all. But the fact is, it guarantees minority rule. Republicans love this because, this current group of Trump Sect devotees at least, they are truly anti-democratic in outlook and disposition. They consider democracy "mob" rule because the mob's individual members are not rich and powerful, and their realities are very far from those of the rich and powerful.
67
@Lldemats
Yes, And the founding fathers had the same cynical view of democracy and wanted to protect minority rule for white, land owning, males.
2
@Lldemats Amazing how Dems want to change the system in fundamental ways, like abolish the Electoral College and pack the Supreme Court, all because they lost one election - and yet they portray Trump as the one who "violates norms." Isn't the Electoral College a "norm" you should respect, and not change simply because your side lost one election?
3
"Donald Trump commands a remarkable level of support from virtually every elected official in his party and almost all voters likely to vote for his party."
Basically, the Republican party has no backbone and despite all of Trump's grievances, won't lift a finger. That sounds about right. Whatever happened to politics for the people? Whatever happened to America? How anyone can still support him is beyond me.
177
@jack - "Donald Trump commands a remarkable level of support"
The same is true about crime bosses. Trump follows the crime boss play book in everything he does. It was his model growing up and supplied by Ray Cohen. He isn't going to change now.
30
@jack "How can anyone still support" Trump? Depends on the candidate you are comparing him to. Trump certainly has a lot of flaws but if it's between him and a candidate with a Marxist ideology, I will choose Trump. I don't want to lose all the money in my retirement accounts, thank you.
3
@R.P.
Why would you lose all the money in your retirement accounts?
4