Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, December 21st, 2016 | Uncategorized | 20 Comments
In the wake of this country’s just-concluded national election, the second time in recent memory that the winner of the popular vote lost the Presidency, many on the left are calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. The New York Times is down. So is Kenneth Jost:
The electoral college ought to have been struck from the Constitution or invalidated by the Supreme Court long ago.
So the Supreme Court…can decide that something that’s in the Constitution…is…unconstitutional?
Donald Trump’s electoral college victory — despite Hillary Clinton’s lead of more than 2.5 million in the popular vote — is only the latest proof that it’s the wrong way to choose a president.
This crap gets even better. Seems that we can amend the Constitution unconstitutionally.
As a practical matter, we can’t depend on a constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college. Amendments require ratification by three-quarters of the states, and enough small states think they benefit from the system that an amendment would never pass. Instead, it’s up to the Supreme Court — and a properly framed lawsuit — to do away with a system that not only never functioned as the framers intended but blatantly violates the court’s “one person, one vote” principle.
You know. Because SLAVERY.
The mechanics of the electoral college are the product of a morally corrupt decision to placate slave states in the agrarian South. At the Constitutional Convention, Pennsylvania’s James Wilson proposed direct election of the president, but he was shot down by the slave-owning Virginian James Madison.
The South’s nonvoting slaves would have counted for nothing in a popular-vote system. But slaves increased the political clout of the South because the Constitution’s three-fifths clause — each slave was deemed to be worth three-fifths of a person — counted them for apportionment in the House of Representatives. The same math was applied to the electoral college, which extended that clout to the presidency.
Perhaps. But the fact of the matter remains that Hillary’s PV win came about because of one state.
Democrats who are having trouble getting out of the first stage of grief — denial — aren’t being helped by the fact that, now that all the votes are counted, Hillary Clinton’s lead in the popular vote has topped 2.8 million, giving her a 48% share of the vote compared with Trumps 46%.
To those unschooled in how the United States selects presidents, this seems totally unfair. But look more closely at the numbers and you see that Clinton’s advantage all but disappears.
As we noted in this space earlier, while Clinton’s overall margin looks large and impressive, it is due to Clinton’s huge margin of victory in one state — California — where she got a whopping 4.3 million more votes than Trump.
California is the only state, in fact, where Clinton’s margin of victory was bigger than President Obama’s in 2012 — 61.5% vs. Obama’s 60%.
But California is the exception that proves the true genius of the Electoral College — which was designed to prevent regional candidates from dominating national elections.
But if you still don’t understand just how brilliant that the people who started this country were, this guy ran the election results through some mapping software to find out where the vote of each candidate was the strongest, the most concentrated. Here are Trump’s numbers.
And here are Hillary’s.