Can you explain from the top of your head just how the Electoral College makes a candidate President of the United States? Uh, huh, I didn't think so. A vote is a vote, isn't it? After all, we live in a democracy, don't we? Nope and nope and nope.
Hillary Clinton's margin in the popular vote against President-elect Donald Trump has surpassed 2 million, furthering the record for a candidate who lost in the Electoral College.
Thanks to votes still being counted in California and other western areas, Clinton's vote advantage hit the 2 million mark on November 23, 2016, according to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.
Wasserman's spread sheet had Clinton at 64,225,863 votes to Trump's 62,210,612.
(David M. Jackson.
“Clinton's lead passes the 2 million mark.” USA Today.
November 23, 2016.)
This is not the first time
a candidate won the popular vote but lost the election. It has
happened four other times in our nation’s history:
- In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but got less than 50 percent of the electoral votes. John Quincy Adams became the next president when he was picked by the House of Representatives. Jackson got 38,221 more votes than Adams.
No candidate won a majority of the
electoral votes. The House of Representatives selected John Quincy
Adams as president. (Jackson won the election four years later.)
- In 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election when Rutherford B. Hayes got 185 electoral votes to Tilden’s 184. Tilden got 252,666 more votes than Hayes.
Tilden narrowly won the popular vote
over Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes, but twenty contested
electoral votes prevented either man from winning a majority of
electors. In a compromise that ended the federal occupation of the
South that had begun after the Civil War, Congress certified all
twenty contested votes as having been cast for Hayes.
- In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election when Benjamin Harrison got 233 electoral votes to Cleveland’s 168. Cleveland got 94,530 more votes than Harrison.
Cleveland's support was largely
regional: he won large majorities in several southern states, which
raised his popular vote totals but won him few electoral votes.
- In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to
George Bush. In the most highly contested election in modern
history, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount of
ballots, giving Bush the state’s 25 electoral votes for a total of
271 to Gore’s 255. Gore got 543,816 more votes than Bush.
(Michael
P. McDonald. “National General Election VEP Turnout Rates,
1789-Present.” June 11, 2014.)
(Gerhard
Peters. “Voter Turnout In Presidential Elections.” 1999-2016.)
(David Walbert. “Does my vote count? Understanding the electoral college.” learnnc.org. 2016.)
So
What?
Some
of the founders wondered if it would be wise to permit average
citizens to vote but wanted to stay true to their republican
principles (The people would govern themselves only through elected
representatives.). Because the role of the president was so
important, most of the framers thought that the people couldn't be
trusted to elect the president directly. The Electoral College was
their answer.
Many
critics of the electoral system say it violates the basic principle
of voters electing the president, so the winner should be the
candidate who wins the most popular votes. In reality, there is no
national election for president, only separate state elections to
garner a majority of electoral votes
Those
who support the electoral system claim it encourages candidates to
campaign across many states, rather than focusing on the huge states,
such as California or Texas. Still, in practice,
presidential candidates tend to ignore states where one party already
dominates and focus on the few select states that are deemed to be
“battlegrounds” where either party might prevail.
Is it fair to lose the election to the Electoral College while winning the popular vote? The answer to that question may depend upon where you live.
According to Dr. David Walbert, editorial and web Director of LEARN NC, “your vote counts more if you live in a small state like Alaska than it does if you live in a big state like California. Walbert explains ...
“Alaska,
a very small state, has far fewer residents per electoral vote than
the national average, so individual votes cast in Alaska count more
than the national average — twice as much, in fact! A voter in
California has a little less influence than the average American,
about 83% as much. A voter in North Carolina has about 91% the
influence of the average American. (You can calculate weight
of vote in a
given state by dividing the national average of residents per elector
by that state's residents per elector. Since we're comparing each
state to the national average, the weight of vote for the entire
United States is exactly 1.00.
While every
American's vote counts, then, This seems like a paradox, because
clearly a big state as a whole
has more influence than a small state. If you're running for
president, you are more concerned about winning California, with its
54 electoral votes, than you are about winning Alaska with its 3
electoral votes. As a matter of strategy, you'd probably spend more
time and money campaigning in the big states than in smaller states.
As a result, residents of big states tend to get more attention in
presidential elections than residents of small states, and so
small-staters may feel left out and unimportant. Yet in reality, each
individual voter has less influence in a big state than in a small
state.”
(David Walbert. “Does my vote count? Understanding the electoral college.” learnnc.org. 2016.)
I can't imagine the struggle government and history
teachers have in teaching young adults the facts about the voting
system used in presidential elections. I doubt if even many adults
could explain in full just how the Electoral College works. Just as
alarming to much of the under-informed public is the fact that
America is a republic, not a democracy – even though the Pledge of
Allegiance contains the words “I pledge allegiance... to the
republic, for which it stands,” I dare say a vast minority
understands that commitment.
“Liberty and justice for all” as it applies to the
Electoral College and the election of the president is debatable,
especially considering the reasons for the its inception. Once more
the country has a leader who lost the popular vote. I would bet you
think the system is “great” or “terrible” depending upon the
candidate for which you cast a vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment