Citizens Dedicated To Preserving Our Constitutional Republic
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.
Tags:
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Legislative News
Congressional Quarterly
C-SPAN
Roll Call
Stateline.org
The Hill
Washington Post
Politics Section
Boston Globe
Dallas News
Denver Post
Los Angeles Times
Minneapolis Star Tribune
Stop Island Park Wildlife Overpasses
Seattle Times
NY Times
Washington Post
Washington Times
USA Today
Beltway Buzz
CQ Politics
First Read
The Hotline
The Note
The Page
Washington Wire
Mike Allen's Playbook
Politico
Roll Call
The Hill
CNN Political Ticker
The Swamp
The Fix
Washington Whispers
Fish Bowl DC
Online Political Sites
Alternative Press Index
Capitol Hill Blue
CommonDreams.org
Digg.com Politics
Drudge Report
Political Insider
Political Wire
Politico
PopPolitics
Real Clear Politics
Salon.com
Slate
Stateline.org
TCOT Report
TomPaine.com
US Politics Guide
© 2025 Created by WTPUSA. Powered by