The electoral college vote

[John F]

It happened on Tuesday. Clinton supporters hoped that enough Trump electors would defect to change the outcome, but in vain; only two did so and Trump had his clear majority. To the contrary, four Clinton electors in Washington State didn't vote for her. Three voted for Colin Powell and one for a Native American named Faith Spotted Eagle, a protest vote against the Keystone pipeline. Unbelievable.

Meanwhile, Clinton's margin in the popular vote has increased to 2.8 million. That's more than 5 times Al Gore's popular majority in 2000. But as we know, in this "democracy" of ours, the popular vote doesn't count.

The electoral college votes are now being reported to the House of Representatives, which will count them and undoubtedly affirm Trump's election. It's over.

[jserraglio]

Clinton did win the popular vote, as we have been constantly reminded by her partisans. Would there have been this much commotion from that quarter if Trump had won the popular but lost the electoral vote? The problem is not that the election was undemocratic: the problem is that Clinton lost Democratic strongholds Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. She won five states between the coasts and her supporters are bitching she is not PEOTUS. As Barack Obama might say, "Come on, man!"

[lennygoran]

No matter who won I feel a discussion of the electoral college is in order-I personally feel it should go but realize that will be hard to achieve-I`m also for a full investigation into the Russian hacking -democrats and republicans like Graham and Mccain are for that as well. Len

[John F]

Clinton did win the popular vote, as we have been constantly reminded by her partisans. Would there have been this much commotion from that quarter if Trump had won the popular but lost the electoral vote?

Pointless question. Whenever the electoral college vote has trumps the popular vote, the loser has been a Democrat: Tilden, Gore, Clinton. The Republicans have had nothing to complain about, to the contrary. As Trump was saying all along, this election was rigged - but it was rigged by the writers of the Constitution. It was their undemocratic intention that the people not decide who their president will be, and two centuries later they're still getting what they wanted. Whether they would still want it, when the demagogue they feared is now becoming president precisely because of their system, is an easily answered question.

The problem is not that the election was undemocratic: the problem is that Clinton lost Democratic strongholds Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. She won five states between the coasts and her supporters are bitching she is not PEOTUS. As Barack Obama might say, "Come on, man!"

As I say to you, "Come on, man!" A comfortable majority of the American people from coast to coast have chosen Hillary Clinton. Their will has been thwarted by the artificial requirement that the election be won state by state, and the unjust requirement that the low-population state have a disproportionate number of electors. The deck is stacked. We have a right to complain. Most likely that's all we can do, since the Constitution is so hard to amend, and the low-population states have a stake in their undue influence.

[jserraglio]

Pointless question.

Once again, the pot calls out the kettle. When challenged, a favorite tactic of yours is to label an opposing viewpoint as "off-topic", "irrelevant", "irrational", "arrant nonsense", or in this case, "pointless". If indeed my question was "pointless," its pointlessness was topped by your kindred response.

The point remains, California, New York, and Massachusetts are not enough to make a Democrat POTUS. Solution for Dems next time around: win more states, instead of flying over them, nose in the air.

[lennygoran]

For me everyone in the US should have one vote equal in power to anyone else. Let`s say 10 people were deciding on a restaurant to eat at-why would one`s person vote be worth more than the other 9 people? Len

[Belle]

Pointless question.

Once again, the pot calls out the kettle. When challenged, a favorite tactic of yours is to label an opposing viewpoint as "off-topic", "irrelevant", "irrational", "arrant nonsense", or in this case, "pointless". If indeed my question was "pointless," its pointlessness was topped by your kindred response.

The point remains, California, New York, and Massachusetts are not enough to make a Democrat POTUS. Solution for Dems next time around: win more states, instead of flying over them, nose in the air.

And don't call the people "deplorables". I've just been watching "It's a Wonderful Life" and George is speaking to Mr. Potter who describes the locals as "rabble". George responds, "they're the people who do the working, the living, the paying and the dying".

Worth remembering.

Merry Christmas!

[RebLem]

I heard a startling statistic the other day. Although she won more votes than Donnie Little Hands, Hillary Clinton won only 16% of the counties in the US. Not what anyone would call a broad base of support.

Let me tell you a true story from my college days in rural Missouri in the 1960's. One of my friends, whose name I have forgotten, was a woman in her fifties who had decided to go back to school after many years of marriage and occasional work in the community. She was an uncommonly thoughtful person. I discussed an upcoming local election for state rep with her once. She favored the Democratic candidate and I was still a Republican then. I said, "Now you know my candidate is better than yours, why are you voting for him?" I thought that would make her a bit angry and she would say something like, "Well, let me tell you a few things, buster," and I would get an honest full throated defense of her candidate, who was also the incumbent. She surprised me. I got a pained expression, and she said, "Yes, I know," to my statement that my candidate was better. Then I asked her why she was voting for him anyway.

I have forgotten her name, and the names of both candidates, but I will never forget what she said next. "I live in Skidmore [a nearby town of about 400 people]. My neighbor three doors down shares a rear property line with him, and when he is home from the legislature, I see him on the street every day. If I ever voted against him, I'd never be able to look him in the eye again." That, folks, is what retail politics is like in small town and rural America, and people of both parties who live in big cities and suburbs just don't understand that. But if you want to win elections with a broad base of support, you have to understand that and get entrée to it somehow or other. I regret to say that Republicons have been far more successful at this in recent decades than Democrats have.

[John F]

Counties don't count, as of course you know. The population of Los Angeles County is 10,170,292; that of Loving, King, and Kenedy Counties, Texas, is a grand total of 801. And your Democratic friend's anecdote merely shows how irrational voters can be - which after last November, we already know anyway.

[RebLem]

Counties don't count, as of course you know. The population of Los Angeles County is 10,170,292; that of Loving, King, and Kenedy Counties, Texas, is a grand total of 801. And your Democratic friend's anecdote merely shows how irrational voters can be - which after last November, we already know anyway.

If you are prosperous enough, as I suppose you are, you can afford to look down on the rest of the country and revel in your cultural superiority. But some of us more vulnerable people want a government that works for us and to get that we need candidates who understand how to appeal to the folk you regard with such disdain. My friend was not irrational. She just had priorities that are different from yours, which you choose to see as irrational without having known anything about her other than what little I have told you. When you live in a small town with no cultural amenities, friendships and getting along with your neighbors is everything. Without it, you are isolated, and having maintaining those relationships as your top priority is not at all irrational.

[John F]

RebLem, you are completely out of line. Personal attacks are prohibited in Classical Music Guide; it's been grounds for expulsion more than once. Besides, you don't know me and you know very little about me, so you literally don't know what and whom you're talking about. Take it back, please.

[jbuck919]

Do I have to say it? The Electoral College has always been undemocratic It was intended to be undemocratic in this supposedly revolutionary country that did not have a monarch. We have only , suffered from this now for centuries because the Republicans know it is the only way they can exercise power. The UK did a much better job of making the monarchy constitutional and various other reforms than the people they gave up fighting after Yorktown have ever done. (That does not mean that a purer democracy does not make bad decisions, as Britain did recently and then previously when they elected Thatcher, but it does mean that we're stuck with an intolerable situation, and in this case it could result in the death or destitution of millions of people, including me.)

[jserraglio]

Close elections look a heckuva lot more democratic when you win 'em, much less so when you lose. You woulda thought the Dems, having been burned once by the electoral-college system, would have learned to compete in, instead of taking for granted, or even writing off, states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. That's where they lost the election, lamely and incompetently.

Apparently, Bill Clinton tried to get the HRC campaign to see the problem with their narrowly focused "new demographic" strategy that ceded the working-class white vote to Trump, but they did not listen. As a result, folks in these four states voted their perceived self-interest and the election was lost. Those Trump voters were "irrational", so say the post-mortem spin doctors. The system is "undemocratic," we are told. Abolish the Electoral College!

[lennygoran]

Close elections look a heckuva lot more democratic when you win 'em, much less so when you lose.

Still as someone who feels majority rules I've been against the electoral college for a long time--it really doesn't matter to me who wins or loses-it just doesn't seem fair. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

As you suggest, a strong case can be made for altering or abolishing the current electoral system. But given the partisan animosity and the deep cultural mistrust between coastland and heartland, (a divide that has surfaced even in this thread with insults and accusations being traded back and forth), the chances or doing anything on this front are slim so long as the Dems are in disarray.

My objection has to do with some of the Dems' scapegoating the poor old electoral college, while ignoring HRC's ineffectual performance. What they might acknowledge for starters (and many lesser figures in their own party have said as much) is that they "got their clock cleaned" by Donald Trump and his de facto running mate, Kellyanne Conway. In my view, the HRC operation made some bush-league errors: metaphorically defining the game as checkers while the Trump/Conway team engaged them in tri-level chess. Forgetting that racking up a huge popular-vote lead on the coasts would be meaningless if key states in the heartland were lost.

The Democrats Screwed Up by Frank Bruni
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opini ... ed-up.html

Hillary Clinton’s Expectations, and Her Ultimate Campaign Missteps by Amy Chozick
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/po ... paign.html
Last year, a prominent group of supporters asked Hillary Clinton to address a prestigious St. Patrick’s Day gathering at the University of Notre Dame, an invitation that previous presidential candidates had jumped on. Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr. had each addressed the group, and former President Bill Clinton was eager for his wife to attend. But Mrs. Clinton’s campaign refused, explaining to the organizers that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to spend time reaching out to. As it became clear on Tuesday night that Mrs. Clinton would lose to Donald J. Trump, supporters cast blame on everything from . . . . (emphasis added)

[lennygoran]

As you suggest, a strong case can be made for altering or abolishing the current electoral system...My objection has to do with some of the Dems' scapegoating the poor old electoral college, while ignoring HRC's ineffectual performance.

I'm certainly willing to criticize Hillary, the media, Trump's insults, Comey, Russian hacking, etc-right now I'm just trying to look at the electoral college in a fair objective way and I acknowledge it's not going away quickly. I have looked at the electoral college as not being fair for a long time. What's made it a more prominent concern imo is that recently it had a big effect on 2 presidential elections-that's what's brought it to the fore for me. Regards, Len

[jserraglio]

As you point out, the current electoral-college system is what we got and isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Nor is Donald Trump, sad to say. If we could somehow get rid of both at once, I might be tempted to take that deal.

Whether the electoral college is fair or not is open to debate. Good arguments exist on both sides. I lean toward keeping it as is. I do object to being lectured in a superior tone elsewhere in this thread to the effect that such a viewpoint is "pointless", and to being told that Trump voters are to be dismissed as "irrational". The electoral-college problem is being used as a smokescreen by some (not all) of Clinton supporters who, galled by her defeat, now have a partisan axe to grind.

[lennygoran]

Nor is Donald Trump, sad to say. If we could somehow get rid of both at once, I might be tempted to take that deal.

Thanks, if you find anything that could help get this done please let me know! Regards, Len

[RebLem]

Michael Moore says that about 90,000 Michiganders (he is from Flint, Mich) voted DEM in the down-ballot races, but left the presidency blank on their ballots.

I think Hillary has always been a poor politician. She is a dedicated public servant--she did good work as Sec of State, in the Senate, and as an advocate for children in the courts. But she has always been ham-handedly insensitive to others. The classic example happened in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign when she said she wasn't going to sit home and bake cookies and "stand by her man like Tammy Wynette." RULE ! of politics is DON'T MAKE ANY ENEMIES UNNECESSARILY. She made enemies of cookie bakers, Tammy Wynette, and Tammy Wynette's fans gratuitously. Nothing about the message she wanted to convey made that necessary. She just went out looking to make an enemy. It made no sense at all. Why would any stay at home mom who bakes cookies ever feel valued and respected by Hillary Clinton after that?

I think lots of Democrats decided they'd rather have a president they hated that one they'd wince over every few months. And I say this as someone who voted for her in the general election. She was my third choice, though, after Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, whom I voted for in the primary. And when I saw that my ballot contained a ticket from And I have to say that when I saw that my ballot contained a minor party called the Peace and Freedom Party whose candidates were Gloria La Riva and Dennis Banks from the American Indian Movement, which I have long admired, I really thought seriously about voting for them instead.

[jserraglio]

Adapting Barbara Bush's remark about the Bush dynasty: We've had enough Clintons in the White House. Having suffered a quarter century with Clintonitis, many voters took their meds and gave Trumpathology a shot.

[Belle]

Michael Moore says that about 90,000 Michiganders (he is from Flint, Mich) voted DEM in the down-ballot races, but left the presidency blank on their ballots.

I think Hillary has always been a poor politician. She is a dedicated public servant--she did good work as Sec of State, in the Senate, and as an advocate for children in the courts. But she has always been ham-handedly insensitive to others. The classic example happened in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign when she said she wasn't going to sit home and bake cookies and "stand by her man like Tammy Wynette." RULE ! of politics is DON'T MAKE ANY ENEMIES UNNECESSARILY. She made enemies of cookie bakers, Tammy Wynette, and Tammy Wynette's fans gratuitously. Nothing about the message she wanted to convey made that necessary. She just went out looking to make an enemy. It made no sense at all. Why would any stay at home mom who bakes cookies ever feel valued and respected by Hillary Clinton after that?

I think lots of Democrats decided they'd rather have a president they hated that one they'd wince over every few months. And I say this as someone who voted for her in the general election. She was my third choice, though, after Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, whom I voted for in the primary. And when I saw that my ballot contained a ticket from And I have to say that when I saw that my ballot contained a minor party called the Peace and Freedom Party whose candidates were Gloria La Riva and Dennis Banks from the American Indian Movement, which I have long admired, I really thought seriously about voting for them instead.

I'll weigh in on this, if you don't mind, even though I'm not American. My family and I watched this closely because my sister worked at Democratic Headquarters in NY both in the Primaries in March last year and during the actual election in November. She would regularly contact me about how wonderful a time she was having meeting all those "terrific liberals" who opened their homes to her. She gushed that she had her "tickets and accommodation bought and paid for" and should be setting off in a week or two for "the Inauguration". Such was her (and others') certainty about a win. I hasten to add she hasn't spoken to me since the defeat and nearly gagged when I suggested the American people had "Hobson's Choice"!!

My sister is a feminist lesbian who votes for anybody who is sympathetic to that position. Anybody who doesn't have these values is labelled "extreme". I told her what I'm saying here...not good enough to vote for somebody purely because of his/her gender. The US is late to the party - most other nations have already had female leaders long ago. And what kind of feminist lets her husband serially do to her what I never would tolerate myself from any man, without my own 'feminist' moniker?

The people saw through it all. I won't comment on Trump.

[John F]

I think Hillary has always been a poor politician.

You may not have liked her style, but that's hard to maintain since she won election twice to the Senate and got a majority of the popular vote last fall. A FDR or even a Bill Clinton she isn't, but if a politician's quality is to be judged by results - and how else? - she's certainly above average. Whether she would also have won the electoral college vote if not for well-timed interventions by the FBI director (a Republican) and Vladimir Putin's hackers we'll never know, but it's arguable.