The nonpartisan Cook Political Report says that Hillary Clinton now leads Donald Trump by 2.5 million in the popular vote.
Some commenters say, well, the Electoral College can’t be changed.
Funny, the original Constitution limited voting to white male property owners. It changed.
Imagine if the governor of your state was elected not by popular vote but by a state electoral college consisting of representatives from each district. Nuts, right?
In a democracy, the one with the most votes wins. Not in this democracy.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Start a movement to change the constitution. Whining does not become adults. You don’t like it? TAKE ACTION! Right now it just sounds like sour grapes.
Something tells me that if roles were reversed, you would not make the same complaints, but call the republicans whiners if they make the same noises
Rudy,
I don’t accept the legitimacy of the candidate who lost the popular vote. No matter which party.
Than why did you not work to get rid of the EC 16 years ago? Could have been done by now!
Diane, I heard investigative reporter Greg Palast on the Thom Hartmann Program this morning (Thursday), after he was on the phone all morning with those involved in the recounts.
My blood is boiling, because it’s becoming clearer and clearer that this election was stolen. I’m not into conspiracy theories, but a systematic, years-in-the-making Republican plan to deny more and more Democrats their votes through underhanded means is something I can completely believe.
Palast published this guide to the recount yesterday:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38553-the-no-bs-inside-guide-to-the-presidential-vote-recount
But he went into greater detail in the interview with Hartmann. I’m hoping there’s a recording of it I can send you. It’ll make your blood boil, too.
One example Palast gave in the interview: Wisconsin made early voters, which tend to lean Democratic, fill out absentee ballots instead of regular ballots, and if the information written on the outside of the envelope was filled out wrong, or if the signature didn’t match, or if the thing was simply folded wrong in the envelope, the ballot wasn’t counted. It would be easy to target certain groups, with the info on the outside of the envelopes.
Palast ended by saying he feels there are enough unjustifiably “spoiled” ballots to flip this thing, but it sounds like we won’t know in time to stop Trump.
This just appeared. A quick summary of the Palast interview on Thom Hartmann’s show:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028322678
Rudy Schellekens
Add to the loss of popular vote, the fact that one party has consistently made efforts to suppress the vote . Has constantly been forced to roll back illegal voting restrictions by the courts . Has taken over the party of the Jim Crow South . . Banana Republics have more legitimate voting systems than the Republicans would like to see .
Add to that ,there is a real possibility of collusion with a foreign power to alter an election through espionage . No difference between physically breaking into the opponents office, Watergate, or their emails.
Collusion with former members and current members of the state police apparatus (FBI) in order to alter the results of an election . Good thing for your .namesake (lol) this isn’t Turkey he would be in front of a firing squad.
And what we may yet find out is that the same foreign power who
hacked into the voter registration databases of several states may have successfully hacked the process itself .
There is no mandate, when 2.5 million more voters vote for the loser and the difference in the states that determined the election were razor thin . Congressional elections have been decided with almost the total difference in the 3 states. 4cd NY 50,000 vote difference.
If we saw these circumstances in Venezuela we would be screaming
that Chavez or currently Maduro was a dictator fraudulently stealing the election.
The National Popular Vote bill is 61% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of predictable outcomes.
No more handful of ‘battleground’ states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill was approved this year by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the way to guaranteeing the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country
NationalPopularVote.com
It is still not good enough. The states cannot be involved at all or the potential continues for the second place winner can still win.
The only fair system is determining the winner based on the total national vote.
Doug – The bill guarantees a majority of Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote.
To not involve states would require a constitutional amendment, which could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.
The Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution permit states to conduct elections in varied ways. The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and retains state control of elections
If this vote was reversed, there would have to marshal law declared in half the states.
So that there no misunderstanding. if Trump had won the popular and lost the electoral . Time for mass demonstrations especially in states where republicans might be vulnerable. only have to flip three on most issues
Democracy is a winner takes all system. In one sense, it does not seem very democratic at all when we equate “democratic” with “fair.” It is not at all fair to the possible 49.999% of voters who might not have agreed. I’m not sure how to think about people who chose not to vote; there is no one reason why someone makes that choice; we need to understand why. We hope that in the day to day operation of government the views of the “losers” will carry some weight. Some people are very comfortable with the idea that a few large states could decide the presidency. I am not convinced that the wisdom of the entire country exists in a few large urban enclaves. It seems that this past election actually told us that; too many people have been ignored. Whether we keep the electoral college as is or not, we do need to find a way to make sure that so many people are not left hanging out to dry.
Thank you for the historical background. I was referring to a general tone calling the current system not democratic, which, I was hinting in today’s parlance, seems to equate with it’s not fair. In fact, I don’t think democracy is necessarily a fair system. It is built on “winner take all.” I really find myself a little uncomfortable with the call for the end of the electoral college because, in a federal system, we are also trying to protect the voices of what might be considered minority voices. I am suppose to trust the voice of the masses or at least a majority of the masses. I’m not sure I do. Reliance on simple majority rule may leave a whole lot of people without representation. I find myself in agreement with James. Perhaps there is a better way to make sure everyone’s voice is heard. Pure democracy never claimed that.
And I really thought after 2000 and that electoral college debacle things would change. Now we are in 2016 with a much more serious problem, i. e., a HUGE popular election LOSER winning the election because of this scurrilous clause, and a psychologically challenged Fascist to boot. I’m not convinced we can survive this administration and remain the people and country we have strived to be. It is up to the electors to do the right thing. Which they won’t. Past time to deal with this injustice – not to mention the enormous voter suppression that took place. How do we combat that?
As others have pointed out, if the situation had been reversed, there would be massive violence in the streets and Trump would be cheering them on. Not only that, The GOP would work overtime to get rid of this anachronism. We have as much chance of repealing the E.C. as we do of enacting a true universal health care system. It is beyond nuts that the person who garners 2.5 million more popular votes is the loser.
Here’s a question for constitutional lawyers: In view of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, is the vote of the Electoral College still constitutional as the College is currently constituted?
In round numbers, California has a population of 39,000,000, and its citizens have 55 electoral votes, which means that each California electoral vote represents 700,000 citizens.
Wyoming has a population of about 600,000, and its citizens have three electoral votes, which means that each Wyoming electoral vote represents 200,000 citizens
That means that each Wyoming citizen’s vote counts for three times the vote of each California citizen, which is greatly unequal.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Bolling v. Sharp decision ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applies to federal matters through the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Therefore, doesn’t that make the Electoral College unconstitutional as currently configured and that the Electoral College cannot validly vote for a President until the inequality is remedied by equalizing the value of all citizen’s electoral representation by adjusting the number of electors from each state so that no elector represents more than 200,000 citizens, thereby equalizing among the states the number of citizens whom an elector represents?
Whether the Constitution can be unconstitutional is certainly a conundrum. The conventional wisdom that courts use is that the a constitutional provision isn’t unconstitutional just because it’s inconsistent with an amendment. The way to remove a provision of the Constitution is through the amendment process, and in order to do that, the amendment has to have clear language showing that it was specifically intended to remove the provision.
It’s one thing for the states to remove an express provision from the Constitution by amending it out. It’s quite another for the Supreme Court to do it through judicial review, especially when the provision is arguably the Constitution’s most important mechanical feature, having been relied upon for centuries to determine who’s the President of the United States. I think it’s safe to say that as a practical matter, the Supreme Court will not do that.
Also, in Gray v. Sanders, the decision that established the one-person, one-vote principal, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Electoral College’s disproportionate voting system validated the disproportionate voting system that Georgia was using. It wrote:
That’s not a holding that the Electoral College is constitutional (although it certainly shows the Court was assuming it was constitutional). But it is a clear statement that the Court in Gray v. Sanders did not view state voting systems and the Electoral College as on the same footing in the context of the Equal Protection clause.
Lastly, just fyi, some district courts have expressly held that the Electoral College is constitutional. There was a case in New York federal court shortly after the 2000 election, in which the court rejected the precise argument that the Electoral College violated the one-man-one-vote principle.
Rudy Schellekens
Add to the loss of popular vote, the fact that one party has consistently made efforts to suppress the vote . Has constantly been forced to roll back illegal voting restrictions by the courts . Has taken over the party of the Jim Crow South . . Banana Republics have more legitimate voting systems than the Republicans would like to see .
Add to that ,there is a real possibility of collusion with a foreign power to alter an election through espionage . No difference between physically breaking into the opponents office, Watergate, or their emails.
Collusion with former members and current members of the state police apparatus (FBI) in order to alter the results of an election . Good thing for your .namesake (lol) this isn’t Turkey ,he would be in front of a firing squad.
And what we may yet find out is that the same foreign power who
hacked into the voter registration databases of several states may have successfully hacked the process itself .
There is no mandate, when 2.5 million more voters vote for the loser and the difference in the states that determined the election were razor thin . Congressional elections have been decided with almost the total difference in the 3 states. 4cd NY 50,000 vote difference.
If we saw these circumstances in Venezuela we would be screaming
that Chavez or currently Maduro was a dictator fraudulently stealing the election.
My first voting experience was in the Netherlands. I had to have a government issued identification.
When I moved to the US, I wanted a library card. I had to have a state issued ID.
When I wanted to open a bank account, I had to have a state issued ID
When I want to cash a check, I have to have TWO forms of ID, one state issued.
When I want to have public utilities attached to my home, I have to have a state issued ID
When I want to buy a bottle of wine, I have to have a state issued ID
So, if I need a state issued ID, why would voting be excluded?
And here is the conspiracy: “Add to that ,there is a real possibility of collusion with a foreign power to alter an election through espionage…” I guess there never was a real moon landing, either?
When you register to vote, you have to supply the proper information and documentation. Voter fraud is not a problem. It’s the voter suppression and the gerrymandering which are the problems. When I vote in NJ, I sign the book and then vote. I am not asked to show any ID and this is the way it has been for a very long time because voter fraud is not a problem. The GOP and the right wing media perpetuate this myth of massive voter fraud.
Same in Illinois.
The EC is not locked in. They can vote for someone other than this demagogue who is poised to make billions off of the Oval Office.
Diane,
Im sure you were taught the reasons the Founders created the Electoral College – <please don’t look for any campuses!> but maybe the rest of the crowd calling for a Constitutional amendment to change the process does not – so in my limited ability – for their edification: Progressives want a national popular vote. This would both remove the indirect mediation of the electors’ votes, and more damagingly, eliminate the power of states in choosing a president.
The 2016 presidential election is a perfect illustration of why America needs to keep this institution in place, regardless of whether one supported the winner or the loser in 2016.The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College after much debate and compromise, but it has provided stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the winner of the national popular vote typically takes the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.
The Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.
The Constitution states:
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.
In addition to balancing the protection of individual rights and majority rule, the Founding Fathers attempted to create a “federalist” system that would keep most of policymaking power reserved to states and localities.
A number of prominent people have called for abolishing the Electoral College, including President Barack Obama’s former attorney general Eric Holder, and former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. And some of the media’s charges against the Electoral College have been hyperbolic.
First, that it’s simply unfair that a person can win the presidency without taking a majority of the national popular vote. Second, that an electoral emphasis on states as opposed to the people in an undifferentiated mass pushes candidates to only focus their attention on a few, closely contested “swing states.”
the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule
As designed in the Constitution, America’s presidential election is very much a product of the states—channeling the principle of “federalism” that the Founders cherished.
Smaller states receive a slightly higher number of votes compared to their population than more populous ones, which detractors of the Electoral College claim damages the idea of one man, one vote.
Many say this system is “unfair,” and that the total number of individual votes from all the states is a more accurate gauge for who the president should be.
But, would it be fair for America’s chief executive to mostly be the product of a few urban centers in California, New York, and Texas?
The Electoral College system was designed to ensure that presidents would have to receive support from a diverse array of people around the country.
Modern candidates have to accommodate farmers in rural states, factory workers in industrial states, and software engineers in tech-dominated states. The president must consider the needs and opinions of people across the country instead of just the views of a few, highly populated urban centers.
The Electoral College ensures that the interests of “flyover country” in middle America cannot be ignored.
This was dramatically demonstrated in 2016. Trump drew the support of a huge number of states across the South and Midwest, while Clinton racked up massive majorities in the most populous states like New York and California.
Without an Electoral College, candidates would have little incentive to appeal to people outside the most urbanized, coastal states. Clinton was defeated because she couldn’t win over a majority of voters in the once Democrat-dominated Rust Belt that broke for Obama in the previous two elections.
The state results in the 2016 election also debunk the second major argument for abolishing the Electoral College: that candidates would only spend time campaigning in a few essential swing states.
Trump succeeded in defeating Clinton because he was able to pluck off a number of states—like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—that had voted solidly Democrat for over a decade. This sudden shift is why Trump secured a surprise victory.
This year, protestors unhappy with the election results have gathered in a few enclaves to denounce the president-elect. Some have even called for Democrat-dominated California to secede from the Union.
Yet, with the exception of 1860 (those secession threats were a little more serious than “#Calexit”), Americans have found a way to maintain an incredible record of political stability for over two centuries. It would be incredibly foolish to throw away that system for the sake of one side that didn’t get what it wanted this year.
Demolishing the Electoral College should not be based on the outcome in a particular election.
It is a carefully designed system conceived by the framers of the Constitution, and its opponents would do well to reflect on the reasons it was created before calling for its destruction.
I know why the Founders created the Electoral College: because they feared direct democracy, the mob.
That’s why the Founders created a bicameral legislature and senators were appointed by state legislatures, not popular vote.
That’s why the vote was restricted to white male property owners.
In the 21st century, we now have universal suffrage. Our principle is one person, one vote.
Why shouldn’t our presidential elections be one person, one vote.
Don’t say, because the Founders said so. They also said that a slave was to be counted as 3/5 of a person
jscheidell fails to mention the part that the electoral college was created as a compromise to slavery, to the slave holding states which felt they might be dominated by the more populous northern states. Thus the slave states could count their slaves (fractionally) as part of their population. What a scam, the slaves could not vote but were still counted in the census. As we know, many of the founding fathers were slave owners. We don’t need a middle man voting for governors even though there are regional differences within states. There’s kind of a schism between northern and southern NJ. South Jersey people feel that they are neglected and forgotten.
In a sane world, the EC should have been dumped ages ago. But this is America, that has just elected a fascist demagogue to the highest office. A so called man of the people who has surrounded himself with right wing reactionary billionaires.
A Constitutional amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. My understanding is that more than one fourth of the states are allocated more electoral votes than their population would warrant. So in order to pass such an amendment, at least some of those states would have to be convinced to vote against their state interest.
I’m all for getting rid of the electoral college, but I’m also in favor of making primaries more transparent and fair too. How many people grousing about the general election popular vote had no problem with independents being disenfranchised in the primaries? With Hillary getting more delegates in some states where Bernie won the popular vote? With suddenly changing rules that allowed Hillary to win? With the vastly outsized influence of the superdelegates? With the biased way the DNC handled the primaries? I’ll join hands with anyone who wants to tackle all of those issues, not just the electoral college.
Let’s not re-fight the Democratic primaries. What’s the point? Bernie ran a valiant campaign, but he lost before the super delegates voted. She won 3 million votes more than Bernie. She did not need super delegates.
“So in order to pass such an amendment, at least some of those states would have to be convinced to vote against their state interest.”
Precisely. And some states with disproportionately few electors may vote against their interest on this issue (i.e. against ending the Electoral College) because their broader political interests, aligned with small red states, benefit overall from the Electoral College.
Everybody knows why the EC was created as check on democracy. There should not be checks on democracy. Yes the the people in big states should have power in EXACT proportion to their size. Anything else is anti democratic.
Those who oppose one person one vote ought to call themselves Democrats, sort of, up to a point, with conditions. They are not real Democrats.
A vote in California must be worth EXACTLY the same as a vote in Wyoming.
Granted, I’m for electoral reform myself, but at least present it in an informed light. The population of the U.S. Is not evenly distributed among the states, not even close, hence more populous states could actually hold a very unfair advantage. The electoral college was intended to ameliorate that imbalance. Electors are SUPPOSED to represent the popular vote in their states. I personally do not want California deciding the course for every other person in the entire country simply because their population is larger. That isn’t democracy, either, talk about votes don’t matter! It isn’t a perfect system, but it’s better than nothing. Bear in mind, too, that the epic levels of greed we see these days are a relatively new phenomenon in the larger context of our history (and the Obama administraton did exactly bupkiss in turning the tide set in motion decades prior. No, they did everything they could to help it along).
Also, short of a new, legitimately illegal scandal (read: evidence), there is virtually no chance Trump will be ousted in this fashion. It’s unlikely Hillary could catch up in electoral votes, and even if she took them away from Trump in quantity enough to displace him, the responsibility to choose would then fall to the House of Representatives, currently controlled by Republicans. You do the math on that one.
My personal biggest concern with ol’ T Bag is his dismantling of the FCC, and by extension, the world wide web. That could hit every aspect of modern life so hard our heads would spin. Pray that we, and congress are wiser than that.
Forget about elections? I assume you are referring to the presidential elections only? Or maybe including not voting for US senators and US representatives? Surely you are not recommending not voting in state, town, city, municipal and school board elections. I could not disagree more, it’s still important to vote until we get a workers’ party which is as likely as repealing the EC. There is enough of a difference between the Ds and Rs to make voting a strategic necessity. The GOP is a far right wing radicalized movement party that has gone off the rails. As bad as the Democrats are, the GOP is off the charts horrible.
I wish we had a viable democratic socialist party or a workers’ party but you have to deal with the fact that a huge chunk of the American electorate are adamantly opposed to such progressive parties.
Educational article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/15/in-defense-of-the-electoral-college/?utm_term=.0cab40756e9d
I think he cuts and pastes this stuff. Probably not best to expect an actual dialogue.
“I’m not advocating for “not voting” or “for voting” what I am saying and the evidence is crystal clear as is the historical record that voting in the current system is not only a futile gesture but it serves to validate the system.”
You have no position on whether people should or should not perform futile gestures that validate bad systems?
“I’m not advocating for “not voting” or “for voting” what I am saying and the evidence is crystal clear as is the historical record that voting in the current system is not only a futile gesture but it serves to validate the system.”
You have no position on whether people should or should not perform futile gestures that validate bad systems?
Not sure why you need to resort to “nuance” to avoid acknowledging that you are arguing that people should not vote.
the Dems could have acted after Gore won the popular vote against W. to change the system. It’s like football, there are rules to the game, if you lose by points but score more yardage, you can not claim victory.
Both candidates ran to win the electoral college.
Want to change the rules of the game in future elections, fine.
Apparently, points needed in the game recognized by both parties
have been scored.
Joseph,
The Dems could not have changed the Electoral College after 2000. Bush was president and the GOP controlled the Senate.
How can a minority party change the Constitution?
Who started the ERA march?
There have been several periods of Democratic majorities, too, since 2000
What amuses ma is how the Democratic Party is now making the same discoveries the Republicans made before the recent elections. About the fear of being the minority party, and not being able to come out of that position anytime soon.
At least the autopsy processes are the same.
But there is always 2018. You have the best possible partner for taking over either the House or the Senate…
Rudy,
When was there a Democratic majority in both the Senate and the House since 2000?
When Obama took office he had both houses.
Here is a great summary of how the media has influenced the left.
http://www.4thmedia.org/2016/11/trump-and-the-collapse-of-capitalism-coc/
What Rudy said was that Dems controlled both houses several times. I am waiting for the explanation of “several”
It is hilarious to anyone from outside the USA when the Democrats are called “the left”. 🙂
In any other democracy the GOP would be called FAR RIGHT and the D’s would be called CENTER – RIGHT.
In other countries they have more political parties to create the spectrum. The US only has two parties to pick from.
Within the spectrum of those parties you still have enough different clusters where yes, anumber of Democrat are so far to the left that you can even call them socialist (sanders and his supporters would definitely qualify. Seems like the Tea Party of the democrats) for whom compromise is a four letter word. And then you have those democrats you could even call them Republican. They are against abortion, same sex marriage etc.
Republicans have their left side as well, so far that you could even call them Democrats. They accept abortion, same sex marriage etc.
and then we have the far right, for whom reasonable compromise seems a cuss word.
I tend not to make political spectrum judgements so much by identity politics positions. To me the prime criteria of right and left is on a “favour the rich vs favour the poor” axis or a “private vs public sector” basis.
So that would place the clintons where???
They definitely favor the rich…
Rudy,
Stop the false equivalences. Clinton did not say that climate change was a hoax. She promised to tax the rich more, not to give them huge tax cuts.
She also said that “common folk” could not possibly police wall street. She also accepted millions from the “rich and famous.” Speaks volumes to me about her thinking on the rich.
Apart from that, both trump and Clinton seem to forget they cannot do this by themselves. And, Obama had a similar message – and how did that work out??
You are kidding, aren’t you? I’m pretty common. There is no way in H**** I should be charged with policing Wall Street. I want someone who has been around the block in that role. Dang! She took money from rich people?! Forgive me if my guess is wrong, but other than Bernie do we have a long list of candidates who have eschewed contributions from big money? I admire Bernie immensely for his stance on refusing large contributions that if nothing else held the taint of pay to play.
Diane I agree Trump and Clinton are not the same but she was FAR too close to Wall St. Refusal to release the speeches hurt far more than Comey.