WHY WE LOST!

[Frederick L Neff]

I have heard many out there, from pundits to the average Joe asking "Why We Lost". I have heard this from Democrats of all parts of the spectrum as well as many so called Republicans, so I will effort to answer this question.

I have heard all kinds of explanations, from misreading polling data, to angry white men, and they're all wrong. The question now is where to begin. There are a plethora of places to start so lets begin with the Democratic Party.

First lets dispel a little misconception, it is the Democratic party that supported slavery, while the republicans supported civil rights, the Democratic party supported segregation, it was a Democrat Colonel that started the KKK as a Military wing of the Democratic party in the south, targeting not just any random black individual but aspiring black political figures and the Republicans that supported them,this is Historical fact, not supposition, look it up in any history book. What does this have to do with today? The secret to understanding this question is understanding the Democrat party never abandoned slavery, they merely molded it into a 21 century version based on economics instead of race, you see the economics based slavery is so much less messy than slavery based on race, creed or sex. This is where it gets messy, because many of what we call "establishment" Republicans have followed the lead of their left side counterparts and joined the ranks of what are now called the "elites". These elites are both Democrat and Republicans now that feel their "high education" allows them the privilege of telling others how to live their lives, "We know better better because were educated" is often the explanation. Ironically this could not be farther from the truth, education does not denote intelligence, just ask anyone who live in a college town, they will explain. Is this not the same position as the slave master directing the slave? They take from the fruits of your labor to distribute what they decide is equitable, don't pay what they decide is a fair portion and they hunt you down and take what they feel is  theirs, and they now tell you what you must spend your money on, because they know better. Set aside ownership documentation and this explanation fits the everyday lives of every working american, and none suffer worse than the working poor, who merely sit in wait for the day when then their small gains toward financial independence are taxed away from them. The Democrats pander to minority's, promising them hope, the establishment republicans pander to the independent business owner promising them hope, all the while both figuring how to take as much as they can of what you have to feed their own greed and keep you slaving to provide them with more.

Why did Trump win? College educated or not, hes a brawling street kid, like most of the working poor in America, and those middle Americans are tired of being told to shut up and take it. Will he deliver?Only time will tell.        

[kevin kiernan]

I like that M. It sounds like it would take care of all the different regional problems. It would make for an interesting debate.....The coal miners have no say in the voting structure today. Unless the war on coal hurts the pocket books of the populated areas....Every issue should carry the same amount of importance.The way it is now puts to much power to agendas that get the biggest amount of push from the elite. This idea just might help balance things out. The States near the coast would like Globalism more because they are connected to the world more than the States in the middle of country. IMO.....At any rate. This deserves some looking into.

[jack ludwig]

M a democratic election is decided by counting the votes of each citizen that votes. If 16 million people in one state take the time to vote and are only awarded two electoral votes while another state with 4 million votes gets the same electoral number of votes than the voters are not getting fair representation. We should also change the number of congress members to two per state. Now we are altering the genius of the constitution only to suit the party that cannot attract the majority of voting citizens. Not a good road to travel down in my opinion.

[M]

OK Jack,

First off, we're not a Democracy, we're a Representative Republic and their is a vast difference. We have forgotten our roots.

Explain why the Democrats didn't throw a hissy fit when they won by dint of the electoral college and now are doing so because of a loss by dint of the same process. The public vote does not reflect what you say it does. I also agree that the electoral college neds to be revamped to reflect the will of the people and not just the massive States like California and Ney York. I propose that every State only be given three (3) Electoral votes and the law making it mandatory that the electors vote according to the popular vote that assigned electoral votes in this manner.

Two (2) electoral votes to the top vote getter, and one (1) electoral vote to the Second place Vote getter regardless of party. Doing that would again reflect the original intent of the Founders where the top vote getter became President and the runner up became Vice President.But I'm not trying to imply that should happen today, just the division of votes to reflect the peoples real wishes from every State, No Winner take all crap.That way the will of the people would be protected, there would be NO Fly Over States,every State would again have equal Representation in the process, every party would have an equal chance of winning not just the R's & D's, every person'e vote would count towards the winner.

Only a dyed in the wool fanatical political party supporter would find fault in that suggestion

[jack ludwig]

M, to have a representative form of government you must have a democracy first in the election process otherwise it doesn't work.

Using your suggesting for electing a president that the winner of each state (popular vote) received two electoral votes and the second place winner receives one electoral vote. Using your plan, a candidate in a state where 16 million votes are cast can receive 15.9 million votes and receive two electoral votes while the second place candidate received 100 thousand votes and recieved 1 electoral vote, half of what the winner recieved. No that is not a fair test in my opinion. You either have to win the state to get all the electoral votes or you must win a portion of the electoral votes based on the number of votes you receive. It has to be one one or the other to be fair in my judgement.  

As to which party squeaks when they lose a close race, that will always be the case especially if one side wins the popular vote but loses the electoral vote. I am not against changing the constitution but I see nothing wrong with the system that was set up by the framers. Seems to me it has worked just fine for centuries. 

[M]

Actually Jack, I see your point, and it is the Democrats point. We are not supposed to be a Democracy. People knew that before FDR changed the political Rhetoric. 

We are supposed to be a representative Republic with Democratic principles all constrained within a written Constitution. It's not like what the Democratic Socialists have been pounding into our kids heads. It's not 50%of the people +1 takes all. It's a general consensus  of opinion that does not go outside of the Restrictions and limitations the Constitution imposes on EVERYONE and that includes the Government, and the people. The popular vote way is basically 50%+1 that is the reason why the electoral college was instituted by the Founders, to preclude the Democracy pitfalls. Since then the Professional Politicians have bastardized it into the nightmare we have now with fly over states who's votes rarely count against the Ca. and NY. powerhouses. Don't forget it was Ca. that gave Hillary the popular vote that would have negated everyone else's votes. How would that be fair considering; there were 3,107 counties, 64 parishes, 19 organized boroughs, 11 census areas, 41 independent cities, and the District of Columbia for a total of 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the United States. Trump won 2600 compared to Hillary winning 500. 

Obama won the election but only won 22% of the over 3000 counties winning only 689. Had Hillary won by popular vote she would have set an all time low of winning just 15-17% of the counties.when Trump won 83-85% of the counties.. What hillary won does not show the will of the Nation, it only shows the will of the most populous counties centered in major cities with their Democratic majorities and well oiled vote getting machines. That does not reflect what the Nation wants.

Your scenario while it is possible is highly improbable to about the 96th percentile.

 

[jack ludwig]

M states don't negate other states votes. In a national election we are all Americans and the election to national office should reflect the representation of each voter in the America. The electoral college was a genius conception to modify the strengths of the populated areas to some extent because their are enough of the medium to smaller populated areas to counter the larger populated states. The only states today that are flyover are those that are controlled by one party.  

[Patriot Ozzie]

M,

So the use of the word "Popular" as in popular vote, is a misnomer ? For many foreigners it's confusing and thought Hillary won and then was robbed of the presidency. Some of us studied the electoral process before the election and knew beforehand the Electoral College vote was important and needed to be 270 minimum. Many Hillary supporters couldn't be convinced because they saw the "popular vote" as the main element of the election

Perhaps the media should drop the word "Popular" and call it "County by County Vote" to eliminate the confusion. Just an idea

[marrand]

Jack:
I disagree with you strongly. Ours is not a democracy where every citizen's vote counts equally. It was designed to be that way. Founders didn't want a simple majority rule; but they did want a large say by the population. Current EC is an excellent compromise.

Majority riule is good but it becomes bad when it becomes self-perpetuating. Being in majority doesn't make you automatically correct in your ideas what's best for the country. Thus we need a dynamic minority with good chances of becoming new majority when old majority messes up. In direct democracy this could take place, but would take too long or require serious upheavals. The EC method puts a greater pressure on the minority to change and perform, and gives them a greater chance of becoming the new majority. Granted, a lot of my answer is plain philosophy and speculative. But we have had a long period to test our EC and so far it was either was neutral or positive. So, why not stay with it?

[marrand]

M:
I disagree strongly with your suggestion of equal votes for every state.
In system designed by our Founders, everyone's vote does count, but it shall not count equally. There are many ways of configuring the election, but the Electoral College as it stands now appears like the best compromise available.

Luckily we have had a very long "test" period on this idea. At least in my life time, EC had no effect when the popular vote was clear cut for the winner. That is, it did no harm. In two cases, however, it did a lot of good: saved this country from Gore and from Hillary.

[M]

Marrand,

When the Founders created it the only people eligible to vote were White men who owned land. and they cast their votes for electors. however there were no parties and the top vote getter was president and the second most vote getter was vice president. The original electors guaranteed an equal representation of the Land owners. today's political parties can and usually are dominated by the most populous states. To bring things back to EQUAL representation and provide for the popular vote which has supplanted the land owner vote giving States three electors each with the same distribution for winning the Presidency by party as it was by individual. It would also allow for 2 and 1 vote from one State and 1 and 2 opposite votes in another State to balance out. the winner would win with 76 electoral votes. and streamline the process so it would count more for the peoples choice than the top heavy State populations choice wiere all the electoral votes are given to the winner. Doing that negates the oppositions votes in that State. The three vote per State would not negate the oppositions votes and would insure they went to the party that had the second highest number of votes.

[marrand]

M:

I still don't like your idea. We no longer have the same conditions our Founders did, but we can carry on their spirit of fairness and compromise. At least you and I  start from the same point: ours is not a pure democracy and we will not elect by popular vote alone. Founders rejected that.

Neither will we elect by just counting the states for and against - I think the Founders rejected that too. After all, the EC does have a large popular influence in it.

Now I look at your plan. It functions like simple counting of states. If you win any 26 of them, you got it. By your scheme if you win 26 and get 2 votes each, that gives you  52 plus 24 others where you came in second. That is 76. I don't like this.

I do see your point of the loser getting zero electors from a state. For the second place finisher to get "something" sounds very fair. But it really isn't. With only two parties, a candidate doesn't have to show up in a state at all, doesn't even have to  bother talking to its consitituents, and still get some votes from that place. Just place the name on the ballot and you got something. Sorry, not fair either.

But demanding that every candidate visit EVERY STATE doesn't sound fair either. I don't think there is an ideal solution; so, I opt to stay with the current EC.

[M]

Here is a breakdown of the electoral college as it stands today as copied from;http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/2012-Electoral-V...

• Alabama - 9, unchanged. The state's population increased by 332,636 or 7.5 percent to 4,779,736 in 2010.

• Alaska - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 83,299 or 13.3 percent to 710,231 in 2010.

• Arizona - 11, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 1,261,385 or 24.6 percent to 6,392,017 in 2010.

• Arkansas - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 242,518 or 9.1 percent to 2,915,918 in 2010.

• California - 55, unchanged. The state's population increased by 3,382,308 or 10 percent to 37,253,956 in 2010.

• Electoral Vote Results
• Population
• Census Data
• Election Count
• US Census

• Colorado - 9, unchanged. The state's population increased by 727,935 or 16.9 percent to 5,029,196 in 2010.

• Connecticut - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 168,532 or 4.9 percent to 3,574,097 in 2010.

• Delaware - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 114,334 or 14.6 percent to 897,934 in 2010.

• District of Columbia - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 29,664 or 5.2 percent to 601,723 in 2010.

• Florida - 29, an increase of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 2,818,932 or 17.6 percent to 18,801,310 in 2010.

• Georgia - 16, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 1,501,200 or 18.3 percent to 9,687,653 in 2010.

• Hawaii - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 148,764 or 12.3 percent to 1,360,301 in 2010.

• Idaho - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 273,629 or 21.1 percent to 1,567,582 in 2010.

• Illinois - 20, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 411,339 or 3.3 percent to 12,830,632 in 2010.

• Indiana - 11, unchanged. The state's population increased by 403,317 or 6.6. percent to 6,483,802 in 2010.

• Iowa - 6, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 120,031 or 4.1 percent to 3,046,355 in 2010.

• Kansas - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 164,700 or 6.1 percent to 2,853,118 in 2010.

• Kentucky - 8, unchanged. The state's population increased by 297,598 or 7.4 percent to 4,339,367 in 2011.

• Louisiana - 8, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 64,396 or 1.4 percent to 4,533,372 in 2010.

• Maine - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 53,438 or 4.2 percent to 1,328,361 in 2010.

• Maryland - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 477,066 or 9 percent to 5,773,552 in 2010.

• Massachusetts - 11, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 198,532 or 3.1 percent to 6,547,629 in 2010.

• Michigan - 16, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population fell by 54,804 or 0.6 percent to 9,883,640 in 2010.

• Minnesota - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 384,446 or 7.8 percent to 5,303,925 in 2010.

• Mississippi - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 122,639 or 4.3 percent to 2,967,297 in 2010.

• Missouri - 10, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 393,716 or 7 percent to 5,988,927 in 2010.

• Montana - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 87,220 or 9.7 percent to 989,415 in 2010.

• Nebraska - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 115,078 or 6.7 percent to 1,826,341 in 2010.

• Nevada - 6, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 702,294 or 35.1 percent to 2,700,551 in 2010.

• New Hampshire - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 80,684 6.5 percent to 1,316,470 in 2010.

• New Jersey - 14, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 377,544 or 4.5 percent to 8,791,894 in 2010.

• New Mexico - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 240,133 or 13.2 percent to 2,059,179 in 2010.

• New York - 29, a decrease of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 401,645 or 2.1 percent to 19,378,102 in 2010.

• North Carolina - 15, unchanged. The state's population increased by 1,486,170 or 18.5 percent to 9,535,483 in 2010.

• North Dakota - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 30,391 or 4.7 percent to 672,591 in 2010.

• Ohio - 18, a decrease of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 183,364 or 1.6 percent to 11,536,504 in 2010.

• Oklahoma - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 300,697 or 8.7 percent to 3,751,351 in 2010.

• Oregon - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 409,675 or 12 percent to 3,831,074 in 2010.

• Pennsylvania - 20, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 421,325 or 3.4 percent to 12,702,379 in 2010.

• Rhode Island - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 4,248 or 0.4 percent to 1,052,567 in 2010.

• South Carolina - 9, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 613,352 or 15.3 percent to 4,625,364 in 2010.

• South Dakota - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 59,336 or 7.9 percent to 814,180 in 2010.

• Tennessee - 11, unchanged. The state's population increased by 656,822 or 11.5 percent to 6,346,105 in 2010.

• Texas - 38, an increase of 4 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 4,293,741 or 20.6 percent to 25,145,561 in 2010.

• Utah - 6, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 530,716 or 23.8 percent to 2,763,885 in 2010.

• Vermont - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 16,914 or 2.8 percent to 625,741 in 2010.

• Virginia - 13, unchanged. The state's population increased by 922,509 or 13 percent to 8,001,024 in 2010.

• Washington - 12, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 830,419 or 14.1 percent to 6,724,540 in 2010.

• West Virginia - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 44,650 or 2.5 percent to 1,852,994 in 2010.

• Wisconsin - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 323,311 or 6 percent to 5,686,986 in 2010.

• Wyoming - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 69,844 or 14.1 percent to 563,626 in 2010.

There are 3,007 counties, 64 parishes, 19 organized boroughs, 11 census areas, 41 independent cities, and the District of Columbia for a total of 3,143 counties and county-equivalents in the United States. The average number of counties in each state of the country is 62.

List showing states with number of Counties and Equivalents

State or District	2013 Population	Land Area (Sq Mi)	Land Area (Sq Km)	Number of Counties	Number of Equivalents*	Total Number#
Alabama	4,833,722	50,645	131,171	67	0	67
Alaska	735,132	570,641	1,477,953	0	30	30
Arizona	6,626,624	113,594	294,207	15	0	15
Arkansas	2,959,373	52,035	134,771	75	0	75
California	38,332,521	155,779	403,466	58	0	58
Colorado	5,268,367	103,642	268,431	64	0	64
Connecticut	3,596,080	4,842	12,542	8	0	8
Delaware	925,749	1,949	5,047	3	0	3
District of Columbia	646,449	61	158	0	1	1
Florida	19,552,860	53,625	138,887	67	0	67
Georgia	9,992,167	57,513	148,959	159	0	159
Hawaii	1,404,054	6,423	16,635	5	0	5
Idaho	1,612,136	82,643	214,045	44	0	44
Illinois	12,882,135	55,519	143,793	102	0	102
Indiana	6,570,902	35,826	92,789	92	0	92
Iowa	3,090,416	55,857	144,669	99	0	99
Kansas	2,893,957	81,759	211,754	105	0	105
Kentucky	4,380,415	39,486	102,269	120	0	120
Louisiana	4,625,470	43,204	111,898	0	64	64
Maine	1,328,302	30,843	79,883	16	0	16
Maryland	5,928,814	9,707	25,142	23	1	24
Massachusetts	6,692,824	7,800	20,202	14	0	14
Michigan	9,895,622	56,539	146,435	83	0	83
Minnesota	5,420,380	79,627	206,232	87	0	87
Mississippi	2,991,207	46,923	121,531	82	0	82
Missouri	6,044,171	68,742	178,040	114	1	115
Montana	1,015,165	145,546	376,962	56	0	56
Nebraska	1,868,516	76,824	198,974	93	0	93
Nevada	2,790,136	109,781	284,332	16	1	17
New Hampshire	1,323,459	8,953	23,187	10	0	10
New Jersey	8,899,339	7,354	19,047	21	0	21
New Mexico	2,085,287	121,298	314,161	33	0	33
New York	19,651,127	47,126	122,057	62	0	62
North Carolina	9,848,060	48,618	125,920	100	0	100
North Dakota	723,393	69,001	178,711	53	0	53
Ohio	11,570,808	40,861	105,829	88	0	88
Oklahoma	3,850,568	68,595	177,660	77	0	77
Oregon	3,930,065	95,988	248,608	36	0	36
Pennsylvania	12,773,801	44,743	115,883	67	0	67
Rhode Island	1,051,511	1,034	2,678	5	0	5
South Carolina	4,774,839	30,061	77,857	46	0	46
South Dakota	844,877	75,811	196,350	66	0	66
Tennessee	6,495,978	41,235	106,798	95	0	95
Texas	26,448,193	261,232	676,587	254	0	254
Utah	2,900,872	82,170	212,818	29	0	29
Vermont	626,630	9,217	23,871	14	0	14
Virginia	8,260,405	39,490	102,279	95	38	133
Washington	6,971,406	66,456	172,119	39	0	39
West Virginia	1,854,304	24,038	62,259	55	0	55
Wisconsin	5,742,713	54,158	140,268	72	0	72
Wyoming	582,658	97,093	251,470	23	0	23
Total	316,128,839	3,531,905	9,147,592	3,007	136	3,143

*: County-Equivalent: A city or an area in a state with no county-level government
#: Total number of Counties and Equivalents in a state

Last Updated on : August 12, 2016

DONALD TRUMP WON 2,600 COUNTIES COMPARED TO CLINTON’S 500, WINNING 83% OF THE GEOGRAPHIC NATION.

Taking these factors into consideration you can see how certain states dominate the election process by dint of their population density in urban settings. This in turn Skews the actual will of the people by overriding through assigning all Electoral Votes to the winner and ignoring the lesser populace areas votes. That in turn does not reflect the broad cross section of the public.Until we get an equal representation of the populace reflected in the Electoral College we need to retain it and work for a positive and rational change.