I think you're putting too much stock into those likeability opinions. Trump had an unfavorable nearly as high as Hillary in like/don't like. Trump was/is a bombastic, carnival barking egomaniac with all the interpersonal skills of a used car salesman, yet he won. Why? Because he had a message that resonated. Hillary had no message at all. People basically said, the guys an ass, but if he can pull off half of what he talks about it'll be a good deal. Sadly, everyone forgot presidents aren't worth much when burdened with a do nothing, criminally incompetent congress.
Had Hillary won the Electoral College and not the "popular vote" ...
- Thread starter kandlekid
- Start date
Given the historical fact that 95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, and only a few states let males, with substantial property, vote, it is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about presidential candidates being elected only by voters in big cities.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
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.
In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.
Too bad you didn't have Obama just amend the Constitution by executive order when he was in office and as was his mode of operation. Now we are back with a president and a bunch of republicans who respect the constitution. Man, that's gotta hurt- but we are here for you.
Even though it was before their time, the founders were well aware that there would large population states that would try to control everything 100% and totally dismiss the flyover states. They saw that coming when it was clear that to just leave everything up to the popular vote was to just throw your hands up and let the powers that be in New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia and that you would not be able to get more states to join unless you guaranteed them at least a pittance of power.
California has something like 55 electoral votes and a dozen other states only have three. Try campaigning in flyover states and getting a candidate who is not a loser and see if that helps. I have zero interest in giving California and New York more power such that whatever they want is what the rest of the country gets.
How bout Dead-Ender who said that Canada would be willing take California? Ask him if -once they annex California- he would be willing to have their prime minister elected by popular vote. Might want to check to see which one has the larger population before answering. It might work out fine if you like seeing the Mexican flag flying over Ottawa. Some of you clowns might want to think some of this through a bit before spouting off. The parliamentary systems don't even remotely have direct popular election of their prime ministers. They elect representatives who must then choose the prime minister. Nevetheless, lefty countries = good, american system= bad ..in the minds of the lefties.
By all means get back to me and tell me how elections would work in Canada if they annexed California.......giggle. They haven't even figured out how to make it work with Quebec. giggle on steroids.
Even though it was before their time, the founders were well aware that there would large population states that would try to control everything 100% and totally dismiss the flyover states. They saw that coming when it was clear that to just leave everything up to the popular vote was to just throw your hands up and let the powers that be in New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia and that you would not be able to get more states to join unless you guaranteed them at least a pittance of power.
California has something like 55 electoral votes and a dozen other states only have three. Try campaigning in flyover states and getting a candidate who is not a loser and see if that helps. I have zero interest in giving California and New York more power such that whatever they want is what the rest of the country gets.
How bout Dead-Ender who said that Canada would be willing take California? Ask him if -once they annex California- he would be willing to have their prime minister elected by popular vote. Might want to check to see which one has the larger population before answering. It might work out fine if you like seeing the Mexican flag flying over Ottawa. Some of you clowns might want to think some of this through a bit before spouting off. The parliamentary systems don't even remotely have direct popular election of their prime ministers. They elect representatives who must then choose the prime minister. Nevetheless, lefty countries = good, american system= bad ..in the minds of the lefties.
By all means get back to me and tell me how elections would work in Canada if they annexed California.......giggle. They haven't even figured out how to make it work with Quebec. giggle on steroids.
Last edited:
Actually several of our founding fathers wrote that the Electoral College system was put in place to prevent tyranny from the cities. They feared that if the President was elected via popular vote then only the votes from males in Boston, New York City, Philly, and a few other very populated urban centers would count - while rural areas were ignored in terms of votes and executive policy.
The states are weighted accordingly anyway. This allows California to have a much bigger impact than North Dakota. etc...
I could see the point of the popular vote if New York and Alabama were equally weighted. But they're not.
95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people, and only a few states let males, with substantial property, vote
Now, voters in the biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.
16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.
16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.
The rest of the U.S., in Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.
Support for a national popular vote has been strong in rural states
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes ( not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution) does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.
The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing 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 among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing 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 among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.