{"id":4210,"date":"2016-07-24T22:06:02","date_gmt":"2016-07-24T22:06:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/?p=4210"},"modified":"2016-08-01T05:00:19","modified_gmt":"2016-08-01T05:00:19","slug":"on-the-electoral-college-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/?p=4210","title":{"rendered":"On the Electoral College – 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Here’s how the the\u00a0U.S.<\/a><\/em>\u00a0looked in 2012, according to votes in the\u00a0Electoral College<\/a>…<\/em><\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

<\/h1>\n

\"http:\/\/www.dralionkennels.com\/images\/newsflash.jpg\"Did you know that a candidate for president could get only\u00a040%<\/em><\/strong> of the popular vote, yet get\u00a059%<\/em><\/strong> of votes in the\u00a0Electoral College<\/a>?\u00a0 (Thus “winning?”)\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0It’s happened before, as noted below.<\/p>\n

Which brings up some confusion\u00a0I\u00a0felt a few mornings ago, after the first day of the Republican convention. \u00a0The confusion was about just who<\/strong><\/em> is leading in the polls, Hillary or Donald?<\/p>\n

For an example, see Pick a poll: \u00a0Is the race tied, or is Clinton beating Trump<\/a>? \u00a0As that article noted: \u00a0“It all depends on which national polls you believe.” \u00a0Which makes this as good a time as any to bring up the subject of the Electoral College<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Citizens<\/a> of the United States<\/a> do not directly elect<\/a> the president or the vice president; \u00a0instead, these voters directly elect designated intermediaries called “electors” … who are themselves selected according to the particular laws of each state.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

(See\u00a0Wikipedia<\/a>.)<\/em> \u00a0Which is another way of saying the candidate who gets the most\u00a0popular votes<\/a>\u00a0doesn’t necessarily become president. \u00a0(Think “President Al Gore<\/a><\/em>.”)<\/em><\/p>\n

\"PresidentThen there’s the fact that polls aren’t necessarily accurate.<\/p>\n

For example, in\u00a01948 “every major political poll<\/a> predicted a landslide victory for Thomas Dewey.” \u00a0(For the history-challenged, Truman won.) \u00a0<\/em>See also the article about such\u00a0electoral colleges<\/a>\u00a0in general, which added:<\/p>\n

In the 19th century and beyond, it was usual<\/strong> in many countries that voters did not directly vote the members of parliament. \u00a0In Prussia<\/a> for example, in 1849\u20131918 the voters were\u00a0Urw\u00e4hler<\/a>\u00a0(original voters), appointing with their vote a\u00a0Wahlmann<\/a>\u00a0(elector)… \u00a0Such indirect suffrage<\/a> was a means to steer the voting, to make sure that the electors were “able” persons… \u00a0The left wing opposition was very much opposed to indirect suffrage.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"Which could be another way of saying the\u00a0powers that be<\/a>\u00a0– which\u00a0for America includes some\u00a0Founding Fathers<\/a>, like at right – “didn’t trust the average voter.” \u00a0(And some would say – from recent trends – that they had a point. \u00a0See\u00a0<\/em>Founding Fathers, Trust Issues and the Popular Vote<\/em><\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n

But we digress… \u00a0So just in case I’m being too subtle, there are a couple<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0points here. \u00a0One is that\u00a0those “popularity polls” don’t necessarily mean very much. \u00a0The other is that what really counts is – are? – the votes in the Electoral College.<\/p>\n

The problem is: \u00a0Determining the votes in the Electoral College can be a bit tricky.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the present situation in the Electoral College does<\/em> seem to favor Hillary. \u00a0See for example\u00a0Welcome to the general election: Where did Hillary\u2019s cakewalk go<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Democrats looking for a cakewalk win over Trump in November may eventually get it. \u00a0The electoral college strongly favors Clinton.<\/strong> \u00a0And Trump is always a step away from a total meltdown. \u00a0But in an election in which Americans are disgusted with their choices, anything can happen and a Trump presidency is a real possibility.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"The key passage – emphasized – is that the “electoral college strongly favors Clinton.” \u00a0Which seems to be true even though the election may come down to which candidate the voters dislike least.<\/em><\/strong> \u00a0In other words, the election may come down to choosing “the lesser of two weevils.” \u00a0(As noted in\u00a0Independent Voter<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n

For another take on the problem, see\u00a0Don\u2019t Worry About The Electoral College Math<\/a>. \u00a0Among other things, that article noted that while the Electoral College effectively votes “state by state,” there are few if any purely state polls which can reliably show how a state’s electoral delegates will vote.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, there’s\u00a0270toWin.com<\/a>, with the\u00a0trademark<\/a>, “This isn’t a popularity contest.”<\/p>\n

That site shows electoral votes by state. \u00a0(Which is – after all – what really matters.)<\/em>\u00a0 And that<\/em> brings up the time in American history where one\u00a0candidate for president got only\u00a040%<\/em><\/strong> of the popular vote, yet won\u00a059%<\/em><\/strong> of votes in the\u00a0Electoral College<\/a>.<\/p>\n

That guy’s name was\u00a0Abraham Lincoln<\/a>, and\u00a0in the\u00a0presidential election of 1860<\/a>, he won only 40% of the popular vote. \u00a0(The rest were split between John C. Breckinridge<\/a>, John Bell<\/a>\u00a0and Stephen A. Douglas<\/a>.) \u00a0<\/em>However, Lincoln won 180 Electoral College votes, out of a possible 303. \u00a0(Thus his “magic number<\/a><\/em>” was the152 electoral votes needed to win.) \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"The amazing thing in that election is that Lincoln lost the\u00a0Solid South<\/a>\u00a0–\u00a0<\/em>updated at right –\u00a0<\/em>but won what might be called the “Solid North.” \u00a0(In 1860, those states generally above the Mason-Dixon line and\/or the Ohio River.)<\/em><\/p>\n

And a side note: \u00a0Back in 1860, Lincoln’s “for sure” votes in the Electoral College included New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. \u00a0Those three states had 35, 27 and 23 electoral votes, respectively, for 85 of the total 152 needed for victory. \u00a0Which means that those three states alone accounted for almost 60% of the total Abraham Lincoln needed to become president in 1860.<\/p>\n

For purposes of comparison – and as updated to the present time – New York state seems “solidly blue,” along with Pennsylvania. \u00a0Ohio seems to be one of those\u00a0swing states<\/a>, but one big difference – compared to 1860 – is California. \u00a0In 1860, California had only four votes in the Electoral College, but today that state has 55. \u00a0And it too seems “solidly blue.”<\/p>\n

Which means that Hillary seems<\/em> to start out with a solid 104 votes in the Electoral College. \u00a0(29, 20 and 55, respectively.) \u00a0<\/em>Which – along with the beginning<\/em> – is a “very good place to start<\/a>.”<\/p>\n

That in turn seems similar to the beginning of that other\u00a0American Civil War<\/a>. \u00a0(Where one side “looked much better on paper. \u00a0But many factors undetermined at the outbreak … could have tilted the balance sheet toward a different outcome.”) <\/em>\u00a0But once again we digress…<\/p>\n

I’ll be exploring the 2016 presidential election in future posts. \u00a0In the meantime, one\u00a0final note:<\/p>\n

This may be the last post I’ll publish for awhile, or the next five weeks. \u00a0Next Tuesday – July 26 – I’ll be heading north to\u00a0Skagway, Alaska<\/a>. \u00a0From there I’ll spend four days hiking the\u00a0Chilkoot Trail<\/a>. \u00a0(The “meanest 33 miles in history.”)<\/em>\u00a0 Once that’s done, my brother and I will spend 16 days canoeing down the Yukon River, from Whitehorse to Dawson City<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Assuming I survive all that, I should be back in business some time after August 29.<\/p>\n

But stay tuned. \u00a0There may well be “further bulletins as events warrant!”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

(See the cartoon below…)<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Abraham<\/p>\n

This guy got 40% of the popular vote, \u00a0but 59% of the electoral votes…<\/em><\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

The upper image is courtesy of\u00a0Electoral College (U.S.) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a>. \u00a0<\/em>BTW<\/a>: T<\/em>here is a movement afoot to pass a “National Popular Vote” bill. \u00a0That would “guarantee th<\/em>e Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the entire U.S.” \u00a0<\/em>See\u00a0National Popular Vote.com<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

The \u201cnews flash\u201d image is courtesy of\u00a0www.dralionkennels.com\/newsflash<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: \u00a0“Pick a poll.” \u00a0The article said – among other things – that “Trump\u2019s negatives remain sky-high and higher than Clinton\u2019s, and the GOP brand is horrible (and much worse that the Democratic brand).” \u00a0See also\u00a0Myra Adams: How Does Trump Win 270 Electoral Votes<\/a>?<\/em><\/p>\n

If we do see Donald Trump push the white vote up into 63-64%, it suggests that as whites move towards minority status that they become more aware of their whiteness, and it plays into politics. \u00a0It is a disheartening and dangerous trend, but it might be something we don’t have any control over… \u00a0He has no other path to victory.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The “Dewey Defeats Truman” image is courtesy of the link\u00a05 Historic Presidential Campaign Collapses<\/a>, in the web article\u00a0How the Electoral College Works | HowStuffWorks<\/a>. \u00a0(“<\/em>Dewey Defeats Himself.”)<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: President Al Gore. \u00a0See also\u00a0Al Gore: Electoral College System Needs National Popular Vote Plan<\/a>. \u00a0But see also\u00a0Would Al Gore Have Won in 2000 Without the Electoral\u00a0College<\/a>? \u00a0(Not to mention\u00a0Famed third-party candidate [Ralph Nader] accused of ruining election for Al Gore in 2000 says Bernie [Sanders] shouldn\u2019t run as independent<\/a>.)<\/em><\/p>\n

The Founding Fathers image is courtesy of\u00a0quotesgram.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: “Left wing opposition … opposed to indirect suffrage.” \u00a0They might be changing their minds now…<\/em><\/p>\n

The “lesser of two weevils” image\u00a0is courtesy of\u00a0pinterest.com<\/a>. \u00a0See also\u00a0Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World \u2013 YouTube<\/a>,\u00a0Lesser of Two Evils \u2013 TV Tropes<\/a><\/em>,\u00a0Reader Opinion: Clinton v Trump and \u201cthe lesser of two\u00a0weevils<\/a>,<\/em>\u00a0Master and Commander: A Movie Review \u2013 Maccabee Society<\/a><\/em>, and\/or\u00a0Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World \u2013 Wikipedia<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The actual expression of course is the “lesser of two evils<\/a>.” \u00a0See\u00a0<\/em>Idioms …Free Dictionary<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: \u00a0“magic number.” \u00a0That term is also defined online as <\/em>a “figure regarded as significant or momentous in a particular context.”<\/em><\/p>\n

The comparison in Electoral College votes – between 1860 and 2016 – was gleaned from sources including\u00a0270toWin.com<\/a>, and\u00a0RealClearPolitics – Opinion, News, Analysis, Video and Polls<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Re: \u00a0The beginning of the Civil War, in which “one side ‘looked much better on paper,'” etc. See\u00a0Strengths and Weaknesses: North vs. South [ushistory.org]<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Re: “Further bulletins as events warrant.” \u00a0See\u00a0Calvin and Hobbes Comic Strip, October 25, 1986<\/a>:<\/em><\/p>\n

\"Calvin<\/p>\n

The lower image is courtesy of\u00a0United States presidential election, 1860 – Wikipedia<\/a>. \u00a0The caption: “Black and white portrait photograph (bust) of Abraham Lincoln taken immediately after Lincoln’s nomination.” \u00a0The article noted that voter turnout was 81.2%, “the highest in American history<\/a> up to that time, and the second-highest overall (exceeded only in the election of 1876<\/a>).”<\/em><\/p>\n

For some recent historical perspective, voter turnout in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections was 61.6% and 58.2%, respectively. \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Other notes from the\u00a0presidential election of 1860<\/a>: \u00a0To be precise, Lincoln won only 39.8% of the popular vote. \u00a0His closest competitor – in terms of popular votes – was\u00a0Stephen Douglas<\/a>. \u00a0Douglas got\u00a01,380,202 popular votes, or 29.5 percent of the total, compared to Lincoln’s 39.8%. \u00a0However, Douglas’ million-plus popular votes translated to only 12 votes in the Electoral College.<\/em><\/p>\n

* \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 *<\/p>\n

And speaking of voter turnout, see\u00a0The Americans: The National Experience<\/a>, by\u00a0Daniel J. Boorstin<\/a>. Boorstin indicated that political parties were originally designed – in part – to increase voter turnout, though the blessings of that change seem to be mixed.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Near the end of his book, Boorstin wrote about the \u201cnovel institution of a party ticket.\u201d (429) \u00a0The idea – of voting along party lines – originally stirred opposition from political idealists. \u00a0For example, one editor in 1790 wrote, \u201cWe want no Ticket Mongers<\/strong>.\u201d \u00a0(Emphasis in the original.) \u00a0And in 1800 a Connecticut Federalist \u201cattacked the whole \u2018detestable practice of electioneering.\u201d \u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

But the practice \u2013 which eventually led to our two political parties today \u2013 proved \u201ctoo useful for office-seekers, and too entertaining to voters<\/strong>.\u201d (E.A.) \u00a0Which brings up the matter of political conventions. \u00a0Boorstin wrote that in its original form \u2013 before today\u2019s system of voting in primaries \u2013 political conventions \u201cconcentrated party strength\u201d and increased the chances of victory. \u00a0Also in their original form, party conventions were held only at the state and county level. \u00a0It was not until 1832 that national conventions \u2013 like we have now \u2013 \u201cwere for the first time held by all the major parties that offered candidates for president.\u201d \u00a0See page 430, which also included this thought:<\/em><\/p>\n

So long as problems of American political life remained compromisable, the political parties were the great arenas of compromise. \u00a0When this ceased to be true, the nation itself would be on the brink of dissolution; and then the political parties, like the nation itself, would have to be reconstructed.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"AAnd it seems that we may be seeing that Reconstruction \u201ceven as we speak.\u201d \u00a0See\u00a0Sick Of Political Parties, Unaffiliated Voters Are Changing Politics<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

See also\u00a0Five myths about independent voters \u2013 Washington Post<\/a><\/em>. \u00a0Among the findings: \u00a0\u201cIndependents are more turned off than partisan voters by negative campaign ads;\u201d \u201cMost independents are socially liberal, fiscally responsible centrists, but some are also libertarians and far-left progressives;\u201d and 60% of Independents \u201cagree with the Republicans on some things, such as the economy and national security, and with the Democrats on social issues.\u201d (T<\/em>he red-blue voting booth image is courtesy of the\u00a0Sick Of Political Parties<\/a>\u00a0article.)<\/em><\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here’s how the the\u00a0U.S.\u00a0looked in 2012, according to votes in the\u00a0Electoral College… * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * \u00a0 * Did you know that a candidate for president could get only\u00a040% of the popular vote, yet get\u00a059% of votes in the\u00a0Electoral College?\u00a0 (Thus “winning?”)\u00a0\u00a0It’s happened before, as noted below. Which brings up some confusion\u00a0I\u00a0felt a few […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4210"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4210"}],"version-history":[{"count":91,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4210\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4690,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4210\/revisions\/4690"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4210"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4210"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/georgiawasp.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4210"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}