The Electoral College and the wisdom of the founders...

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • RED
    Very Senior Member - OFC
    • Aug 2009
    • 11689

    #1

    The Electoral College and the wisdom of the founders...

    I ran across this bit of wisdom and found it interesting even though the numbers are WAY off. For example, the article gives Clinton no credit for the 12 counties she won in Alabama, nor the 8 she won in Arkansas and in Texas, where she won 27 of the 254 counties. Over all an accounting of the numbers of counties across America, Trump only won about 90% of them 0r 2,827 vs. 314.

    In their infinite wisdom, the United States' Founders created the Electoral College to ensure the STATES were fairly represented. Why should one or two densely populated areas speak for the whole of the nation? The following list of statistics has been making the rounds on the Internet. It should finally put an end to the argument as to why the Electoral College makes sense.

    There are 3,141 counties in the United States: Trump won 3,084 of them. Clinton won 57. There are 62 counties in New York State. Trump won 46 of them. Clinton won 16.

    Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes. In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens)
    Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. Yet, Clinton only won 4 of these counties (Trump won Richmond).

    Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country. These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
    The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles. When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

    Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc.) DO NOT and SHOULD NOT speak for the rest of our country! And...it's been verified and documented that those aforementioned 319 square miles (+ or - a few) are where the majority of our nation's problems foment.
  • TomSudz
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2009
    • 3676

    #2
    The men who wrote our Constitution were brilliant. Regardless of whatever else anyone else wants to say about them.
    I dream of a better world. One where chickens may cross the road without their motives being questioned.

    Comment

    • dogtag
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2009
      • 14985

      #3
      They did what they did for good reason, so I wonder,
      how come they knew about Hilary even back then ?

      Comment

      • Allen
        Moderator
        • Sep 2009
        • 10583

        #4
        Originally posted by TomSudz
        The men who wrote our Constitution were brilliant. Regardless of whatever else anyone else wants to say about them.
        That includes the writing of the 2nd amendment.

        Comment

        • bruce
          Senior Member
          • Sep 2009
          • 3759

          #5
          The EC serves its purpose which is to force candidates to run a national rather than regional campaign. Having said that, it is irrelevant how many counties any candidate wins. Land doesn't matter. It doesn't vote. People vote. Low population states are allowed by the EC to have a say in elections equal to their representation the House/Senate. The states with large populations have a much larger but equal say since all is based on population. Reality is that candidates winning the large states do not need much support elsewhere. Those loosing the large states are forced to depend on the small states for any chance at winning. Written in an era when the franchise was limited to a small portion of the population, the EC prevented a small number of politically active men from running everything. A little over two centuries later, the EC now prevents highly organized political parties from running the nation by dominating only a few states. The day will come when that will change. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
          " Unlike most conservatives, libs have no problem exploiting dead children and dancing on their graves."

          Comment

          • dave
            Senior Member
            • Aug 2009
            • 6778

            #6
            Clinton was not the first to lose with the most popular vote. Every one acts like it never happened before!
            You can never go home again.

            Comment

            • Vern Humphrey
              Administrator - OFC
              • Aug 2009
              • 15875

              #7
              Originally posted by dave
              Clinton was not the first to lose with the most popular vote. Every one acts like it never happened before!
              Abraham Lincoln is one of the presidents who won with less than half the popular vote

              Comment

              • RED
                Very Senior Member - OFC
                • Aug 2009
                • 11689

                #8
                AHHHH... the popular vote. One monkey and two lions find themselves starving on a deserted island. They vote on who would be eaten first... Care to guess who lost??? Our forefathers saw the risks of the tyranny of the majority and gave us the Electoral College... Thank God, Bruce was not around back then.
                Last edited by RED; 05-28-2018, 06:07.

                Comment

                • blackhawknj
                  Senior Member
                  • Aug 2011
                  • 3754

                  #9
                  Many presidents have won only with a plurality. If some people are so concerned that the EC is undemocratic, they should be advocating runoff elections.

                  Comment

                  • Vern Humphrey
                    Administrator - OFC
                    • Aug 2009
                    • 15875

                    #10
                    Originally posted by blackhawknj
                    Many presidents have won only with a plurality. If some people are so concerned that the EC is undemocratic, they should be advocating runoff elections.
                    Most such elections had only two candidates -- how can you have a runoff in those circumstances?

                    Comment

                    • blackhawknj
                      Senior Member
                      • Aug 2011
                      • 3754

                      #11
                      Reagan won a 3-way race in 1980 with 50.4% of the popular vote. If there is a clear winner of the popular vote, no run off is needed.

                      Comment

                      Working...