THE GENIUS OF THE FOUNDERS

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.

Any questions?

20 Comments to THE GENIUS OF THE FOUNDERS

Michael Berry
December 21, 2016

Somehow we have come to think of the Presidential election as a national election. In reality it is the simultaneous voting of 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Each state then votes for a presidential candidate according to its number of representatives to the Congress plus two senatorial votes. Each state or DC is assured of a minimum of 3 votes.

And all is because we are a federal republic of united states. And each state is sovereign within its proper sphere.

This is really nothing more than basic civics and something entirely alien to liberal/progressives.

Katherine
December 21, 2016

Someone should tell Kenneth Jost, who isn’t as educated as he thinks he is, that the Constitution was amended following the war of 1861-65.

Art Deco
December 21, 2016

The electoral college ought to have been struck from the Constitution or invalidated by the Supreme Court long ago.

What’s grossly amusing is that the cretin which wrote this sentence is the issue of Harvard College and the Georgetown Law Center.

I’m beginning to get the idea that elite schools have very little success teaching much of anything bar certain sorts of class-delimited social cues.

Art Deco
December 21, 2016

The mechanics of the electoral college are the product of a morally corrupt decision to placate slave states in the agrarian South.

He’s also unable to distinguish between the purposes of the electoral college and the purposes of the apportionment rules which applied to federal direct taxes and representation in the U.S. House.

Dale Matson
December 21, 2016

“The electoral college ought to have been struck from the Constitution or invalidated by the Supreme Court long ago.” What else?

AnnaA
December 21, 2016

I just wonder how many of the California votes came from illegal immigrants and/or multiple times voting. Not that it will change the results, but it would be interesting.

Dale Matson
December 21, 2016

“… despite Hillary Clinton’s lead of more than 2.5 million in the popular vote.” How many of those votes were from unqualified voters? This statement is nothing more than a a mythical canard that is false no matter how many times it is said or who says it.

Katherine
December 21, 2016

California had no Republican candidate for Senate, the governor wasn’t running this year, and some districts had no Republican running for the state legislature. Trump had no chance in California and voters knew it in advance. Combine this with probable illegal voting and the “popular vote” canard is a lot less impressive.

Elaine S.
December 21, 2016

I didn’t vote for either Trump or Hillary because I knew that, given the current Electoral College system, my vote as an IL resident could do nothing to materially contribute to a Trump victory, nor could it enable Hillary to win any electoral votes she hadn’t already won. So I was not motivated to vote by the “not voting for Trump enables Hillary to win” argument.

If the direct popular vote had counted, however, I would have heeded that argument and voted for Trump (despite my considerable reservations). I presume thousands, perhaps millions, of other GOP/conservative leaning voters in deep blue states would have done the same.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
December 21, 2016

Those maps are great! Sure, she won the popular vote, but when you really parse the vote her loss was spectacular. She took the liberal bastions of California & Illinois (both disastrously mismanaged by Democrats) but almost nothing else. These votes were in the bag for her a year ago so that $1.2 billion was completely wasted. I think these maps also imply that Hillary won the “illegal” vote. Voter fraud does exist and on balance goes to the Party of Free Stuff. Dems hoot & holler that it doesn’t but at least courts in St. Louis have found that it does.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
December 21, 2016

There are two St. Louis Islands on the map. I know it’s not our Magnificent Hosts call, but the northern point should be named for Barney Frank, or the southern point for the inherited Congressional dictatorship of the Clay family.

Steve L
December 21, 2016

Our parliamentary system gives a seat to the first past the post. Some ridings are squeakers, some are landslides but in the end total vote nationwide is never a factor. Pierre Elliot Jr. was all hot on some form of proportional vote but that seems to collapse and his promise to end FPTP has gone up in smoke like a few of his other election platforms.

Bottom line here the leader of the party winning to most is the big Kahuna for at least four years. So you can never have a Prime Minister that does not have control of the legislature. And ministers are elected members, almost never happens that unelected get those positions and they all are expected to be in the House and take questions from the Loyal Opposition and other Honorable Members. (could this batch of Democrats ever be considered loyal?)

Our Senators are there to give House Legislation sober second though and almost never create legislation. They are appointed for life (when the PM considers it expedient, empty seats are not required to be filled) and are all above reproach and spend their budgets wisely and never ever cheat or bend the rules.

Tom
December 21, 2016

So we still have slavery here in the South. Good to know.

Elaine S.
December 21, 2016

“the northern point should be named for Barney Frank”

Or maybe Al Franken since it appears to be in Minnesota?

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
December 21, 2016

Oh yeah…my bad. They can call it Frankenstein.

Bill2
December 21, 2016

The Supreme Court can just declare anything it wants in the Constitution ‘unconstitutional’?

A perfect summary of leftist jurisprudence.

Lina
December 21, 2016

One person, one vote? How about that district in Detroit that had 50 ballots and 306 votes?

Bill2
December 21, 2016

Lina, that’s the type of math they teach in the Detroit schools.

Marie Blocher
December 21, 2016

That little island around Brownsville, Texas is interesting. Wonder how many illegal aliens settled there and how many voted.

midwestnorwegian
December 21, 2016

Time for the red areas to cut off energy production, food production, and water collection from the blue areas.

Support The MCJ                        

 
                                   
 
Email the editor-in-chief                    
 
©2016 Christopher Johnson                                
 
                        Email about Website issues

Recent Comments

Search

Blogroll