Electoral vs “Popular” Votes

It’s disconcerting, the idea that a presidential candidate can win the “popular vote” and still lose the election. But thus has been our system from the beginning: each state’s electoral votes, based on population not party, determine the outcome. And thank goodness for that.

If the “popular vote” was all a candidate needed, then those states heavily invested by one party or the other would carry the day for all of us. California and New York are Democrat and Trump supporters there, for instance, know it. So why should they bother to stand in line to vote when their vote would mean little? Thus the “popular vote” is undermined.

Clinton apparently won the “popular vote” because voters in heavily populated places like New York and California overwhelmingly voted for her. Trump won the presidency because his votes were spread more evenly across the country and he won many more states, and their electoral votes, though some by a slim margin.

And each of their electoral votes, though smaller than California’s and New York’s, added up to more electoral votes for him. So when the ever-clueless news media makes a whoop-de-do out of her winning the “popular vote,” just remember what it means. The majority of the states voted for Trump not for her.

5 responses to “Electoral vs “Popular” Votes

  1. Yeah, well, happily using the same rules as before and then suddenly discovering that the rules are not to your liking, when you lose, is not exactly a clean sport. Akin to running around breaking thing etc.

  2. If the stupids can’t win an election, why do they think they can get enough votes to change the Constitution?

    • Heh. They don’t know that’s where the system originated, in the Constitution. Their man Obama liked to say he had “a pen and a phone” to issue orders he couldn’t negotiate through Congress and they imagine that’s all it takes to get their way.

  3. And they’ll be right, if our pols give in to them. Again.

  4. Changing the Constitution is a complicated, lengthy process that requires the vote of all the states. Pols have generally avoided it.

    Meanwhile, the Dems are trying to overturn the election, petitioning the electoral “college” to change their votes when they meet Dec. 19 to confirm the election.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/12/voters-targeted-electoral-college-members-to-switch-their-trump-ballots-elect-clinton.html

    With all the groups that opposed Trump lobbying for this, who knows what might happen. Talk about dividing the country. Not that the Dems care. Division is their specialty.