Five Common Misconceptions
About the Electoral College
The Atlantic,
by
G. Alan Tarr
Original Article
Posted By: shredmaster,
11/29/2019 11:55:07 AM
Two of the nation’s last three presidents won the presidency in the Electoral College, even though they lost the popular vote nationwide. In 2000, Al Gore outpolled George W. Bush by more than 540,000 votes but lost in the Electoral College, 271–266. Sixteen years later, Hillary Clinton tallied almost 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but lost decisively in the Electoral College, 306–232. And, as a recent New York Times poll suggested, the 2020 election could very well again deliver the presidency to the loser of the popular vote.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Banjo Willy 11/29/2019 12:01:31 PM (No. 248538)
I know one. I know one ....... it isn't and never will be "electorial" college.
5 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 11/29/2019 12:06:17 PM (No. 248542)
Imagine the surprise if 2020 is won by both the electoral as well as the popular vote! You might want to buy popcorn on Black Friday.
4 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
ho72 11/29/2019 12:06:43 PM (No. 248543)
It's the Atlantic, so the conclusion was determined before the piece was written. Regardless of the veracity of the author's claims, the EC is all that is keeping us from being trampled underfoot by the population centers. Our "betters" on the coasts care only about securing unbridled governmental authority with which to micromanage every aspect of our lives.
12 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
earlybird 11/29/2019 12:08:18 PM (No. 248546)
I don’t know anyone who has called it the “electorial” college….
I’m for leaving it alone. More than ever.
8 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
bpl40 11/29/2019 12:14:49 PM (No. 248550)
This Lefty professor is barking up the wrong tree. If popular vote is deemed to be the rules of the road, a candidate like Trump will pursue that effectively from the start. These people will still not get the outcome they desire. Moving the goal post is their only option. And they are doing it.
5 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
curious1 11/29/2019 1:08:55 PM (No. 248592)
Democracies commit suicide. Which is why the 17th amendment was a bad step in that direction, as bad as the push to remove the electoral college.
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
droopydog 11/29/2019 1:10:48 PM (No. 248594)
I'm is Southern California and NOTHING I vote for (or against) prevails. Election Day 2016 was a busy day for me at work and it was a warm day. There were no Republicans running for Senator. There was no rational reason for me to take the time to go out and vote. Against logic and common sense, I voted anyway. How many in my position in California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Massachussetts and Virginia were thinking the same thing and did not vote? If Trump wanted the popular vote, he would have spent more than 50 cents in California. I think I might have seen one commercial probably geared towards contributors. There was a similar situation in 2000. How many people in western states (and the Fla panhandle, in particular) were motivated to vote after the corrupt media called Florida for Gork? The popular vote can be a very distorted statistic.
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
kono 11/29/2019 1:17:25 PM (No. 248601)
I've heard it called "electorial college" as many times as "electrical collage" ... i.e. never. Unless the error existed in this article and was corrected before I saw it, I can't even imagine why the comment mentioned it.
The issue of large states vs. small states (for which the 'Great Compromise' was crafted) is just as relevant today as it was when the Constitution was written. Contemporary calls to abolish the Electoral College (and even the tweaks being made now to twist it into a popular vote) seem to serve the same oppressive motives as they always have.
4 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
DVC 11/29/2019 1:36:35 PM (No. 248610)
The first sentence proves the writer is an idiot. ALL P\presidents have been "elected in the Electoral College" and NO American presidents have been elected by popular vote.
The popular vote is totally, completely, 100% irrelevant to ANYTHING. Only the ignorant and the stupid even discuss this irrelevant topic.
10 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 11/29/2019 1:42:25 PM (No. 248615)
Eclectic collage?
2 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
mean Gene 11/29/2019 1:43:40 PM (No. 248616)
If the Left stopped demonizing "flyover country" and moved into it instead of flocking to the coast states they might win a vote by the Electoral College.
But they think we stink.
They think flyover people are idiots who they'd rather never rub shoulders with.
Obama gave it his wimpy dithering try when he forced an affordable (mixing all races) housing policy on America just before leaving office.
It didn't hold up in court.
So, I guess no one will force poor dumb Dems into flyover states either.
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
jacksin5 11/29/2019 3:08:22 PM (No. 248658)
Imagine if States used the Electoral System for state-wide Elections. Just for example, New York State would likely have a different man sitting in the Governor's Office.
4 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
kennedylaw 11/29/2019 3:20:31 PM (No. 248662)
Obama and Carter are the only Democratic presidential candidates to win more than 50% of the popular vote since LBJ in 1964 (Jimmy Carter makes the list because he won 50.1% of the popular vote in 1976). Before LBJ you have to go back to FDR. Before FDR, you have to go back to Andrew Jackson. Conversely, other than Trump in 2016, every Republican president since Herbert Hoover has won at least one presidential election with more than 53% of the popular vote. There is a good chance that Trump will make that list in 2020 (Bush Jr. won less than half of the popular vote when he was elected to his first term in 2000, but more than 53% when he was re-elected in 2004). Every time the Democrats win an election they think it is a permanent shift of the electorate in their direction. So far, they have always been wrong.
2 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Banjo Willy 11/29/2019 4:10:27 PM (No. 248683)
Then 'Earlybird' you've not been listening. I forget who but he was a democrat politician
0 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 11/29/2019 4:44:14 PM (No. 248695)
It's a good idea to read the Atlantic to see which potted palm they are currently hiding behind. (Keep enemies close.) But you shouldn't consider the Atlantic's opinion page as gospel, or even truth.
2 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
tsquare 11/29/2019 4:51:32 PM (No. 248698)
Not all of the votes were counted in the Gore v Bush election. It is not possible to conclude that Gore had more votes...just more counted votes
1 person likes this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 11/29/2019 5:35:13 PM (No. 248714)
So, if they truly wanted to ensure people were motivated to vote, they would stop allowing winner-take-all in EVERY state.
Simply go with the winner of the popular vote in each House district (435 electoral college votes), and allow each Senator (100) to vote as they want (presumably partisan).
Now, instead of 5-6 swing states (they call them that because of the EC vote allocation and totals, there would be likely hundreds of swing EC districts open.
So, to take #9's comments, how many don't vote because they don't see it will make a difference, or matter, only to know your vote could help allocate your particular EC/House district to your candidate?
0 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
NorthernDog 11/29/2019 6:30:18 PM (No. 248733)
Hey - no problem if you don't like the electoral college. The Founding Fathers were wise enough to allow amending the Constitution. You just need 2/3rds of Congress must approve it, then 75% of the states ratify it. If the people really want it changed then liberals should have no problem using constitutional methods.
1 person likes this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
4Justice 11/29/2019 6:34:38 PM (No. 248736)
Atlantic=leftist manipulative propaganda rag
Btw, the Internet and information availability has not made more informed voters. If anything, it has created more easily manipulated sheeple. The Founders knew the American public needed to delegate decision making when it came to important issues, because the average citizen did not have the time, information, nor level of education to make well-informed decisions on issues of major importance. We were created as a representative republic. We delegate law-making to those we elect. We also delegate the final decision for choosing our executive by proxy. Our Founders never intended our country to be a democracy for many reasons. And yes, one reason is the fear of the tyranny of the majority. If we were a straight democracy, do you think minorities would have been protected and given representation as it occurred? Or is it possible we night not have made many of the strides we made if the majority always ruled?
0 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Shadow722 11/29/2019 7:49:04 PM (No. 248774)
People think only of "major population centers" electing a candidate, it's actually worse. In 2016 Hillary received 4.3 million more votes in California alone. Yet nationwide she "won" the popular vote (which means nothing) by only 2.8 million votes. That means Trump won the other 49 states by a popular vote margin of 1.5 million votes OVER Hillary.
Do we really want only one state to decide who is President???
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
NYbob 11/29/2019 11:43:27 PM (No. 248867)
I have nothing but contempt for Atlantic magazine. It seems like everyone there is on a mission to use their talent to twist facts and promote the vilest pack of lies they can imagine. There is NO way an adult can defend abolishing the Electoral College, if they are honest about the subject. They won't admit that they are craven urban elitists who simply want all power and money for themselves. Own up to it Alan. Be a man for once in your life.
0 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
franq 11/30/2019 7:28:09 AM (No. 248968)
Face it, if it was the source of lib victories, there wouldn't even be any discussion. The major population centers™, even just a couple (LA, New York) could determine presidential election results from here to eternity if popular vote was the criterion. No sane person wants that.
0 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
4poster 11/30/2019 7:10:24 PM (No. 249461)
So, if it is just popular vote, three or four coastal cities would rule over all others. That is not a representative republic. It is two wolves and one sheep voting for what’s for dinner.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "shredmaster"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
While it appears the author did some deep research, his piece still does not recognize what will result from the direct popular vote, which is dense blue population centers will decide each election, and invariably in the Left's favor of course.