Oh, holy shit: 2.25M votes, now!

[SpankMe]

46.5% to 48% of the popular vote!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true

If I ever see Mrs. Clinton in person, I'll address her as Madam President.

This is a true American tragedy.

[MFM008]

1. you said it.

I really wonder what GOD has in mind.

[lunamagica]

4. Humans were gifted with free will. Humans choose to create the EC, and to decide who to vore for

Humans are responsible for this

[cilla4progress]

2. This

cannot STAND!

[lunamagica]

3. A real tragedy, such an enourmous injustice happening openly in front of the world

And the saddest thing is, nothing will be done about it.

My life hasn't been easy, and I have been somewhat cynical, but I believed that this time, this time I'd see the innate good nature in people triumph -That, you know, love trumps hate..

But now I see that hate trumps love.

And now I am a bitter, bitter woman

[radical noodle]

17. Yes

I had hoped the good would shine through too. This is the first time I've really given up on this country.

[Goblinmonger]

5. I hate Trump and all, but the Electoral College is there for a purpose.

We are a Republic and not a Democracy. Federalism kind of dictates that states have some level of power. This is one of them. I think the world of campaigning that would exist without the EC would be horrible.

[Stargleamer]

8. Read it's history-it was set up out of fear of the masses

And that purpose is to defeat/weaken the principle of one person, one vote. Fundamental fairness gets thrown out the window. Campaigning nightmare?? That's what we have now. California- 12 percent of the population. No. of times Clinton & Trump campaigned in California - 1 apiece, and those could have been primarily fundraising events. To answer a critique of the way things are by stating that's the way things are is probably the most irritating way I know of responding to a critique/criticism

[Goblinmonger]

23. I am aware of the history.

It was, among other things, to make sure that no state became the most important just because of population. LA, San Diego, and San Fran would become the hot points along with NYC, Chicago, couple Florida cities, and couple Texas cities. That's it. That's not cool either.

[Stargleamer]

41. WEll, nothing's perfect

but in my book giving every voter equal weight regardless of where they live is much more fair.

[ProfessorPlum]

9. The EC is a brain dead system that values some votes over others

And has nothing to with being a republic. We can have representative democracy and count all citizens' votes equally. And I would love to see a campaign where every vote counted. As opposed to now, where 4-6 states get all of the attention.

[Goblinmonger]

24. I has a lot to do with being a republic

Each state was to retain power. If it was just all about popular vote, we would have no reason for states.

Without the EC, 4-6 cities would get all the attention.

[ProfessorPlum]

43. are you talking about federalism? Because "states" have nothing to do with the word republic

I point you to

re·pub·lic
rəˈpəblik/
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
archaic

and also

https://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

which points out that

A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]

so, the difference is really about power being vested in individual people, or "the people" as a whole, not whether states have power and how much power they have. Each state in our system is also a republic.

As to your claim about the EC and cities getting all the attention, I point you to this excellent video:

Please watch that, and then join me in working to abolish the Electoral College. It is an anti-democratic stain on our country.

[Eric J in MN]

10. A Republic is a representative democracy. James Madison, father of the Constitution,

...supported using the popular vote to elect the president.

But other representatives of slave states didn't like that slaves wouldn't count that way.

EC is based on the 3/5 compromise (US Representatives determined by number of free people plus 3/5 number of slaves, EC number per state is US Representatives plus US Senators.)

[pangaia]

14. At the LEAST, the electors should have to vote according to the percentage

each candidate received in their state..

[Goblinmonger]

25. I'm aware of Madison's opposition.

And don't forget the suffrage reasons in addition to slavery. People didn't want women in Pennsylvania to be diluting the popular vote.

And a lot of Madison's opposition to the EC had to do with his disdain for factions/parties. We've pretty much burnt that bridge.

[William Seger]

12. States already have a great deal of power in the Senate

Why should a "state" have presidential election power over and above the power of the individual voters in that state? Why should a Wyoming resident have 3.7 times more presidential voting power than a California resident, just because of the states they live in? Why should every presidential election come down to being decided by a handful of states where the votes are close, while the margins in other states don't make any difference at all?

People should elect the President, not land masses.

> "We are a Republic and not a Democracy"

That's a favorite right-wing talking point whenever they want to rationalize a non-democratic process, but it's just word-play. The USA invented the modern definition of a democracy -- a democratic republic -- and the EC is a clear aberration to democracy.

> "I think the world of campaigning that would exist without the EC would be horrible."

That makes no sense to me. I think it's horrible that 80% of the campaigning is directed at states that hold 20% of the vote.

[Nonhlanhla]

22. Brilliant summary

You express my problems with the EC perfectly. Thank you.

[ProfessorPlum]

44. Mine as well

[Goblinmonger]

26. Which is why if the EC can't decide, it goes to the House.

If we get rid of the EC, only Chicago will get any of the attention that will be focused on the coasts.

Why not just get rid of states, then.

Nice subtle "you're a right-winger" jab there. We are a republic. Read Madison's study of republics at the time that he used to help create this one. It's quite impressive.

The EC isn't a clear aberration to a republic. The states were sovereign and agreed to come together as long as they still maintained a good deal of power. Maybe that isn't needed now, but that's a whole bigger discussion than the EC.

Each state can and does contribute to the EC. No EC would mean that about 6-8 cities would get all the attention.

[William Seger]

33. You're talking about federalism, which is a completely different topic

A republic is simply a form of government in which elected representatives exercise power in accordance with the rule of law. Democracy is built into both how representatives are selected and how those representatives make decisions, which is why saying "we're a republic not a democracy" doesn't really make sense.

Federalism is the two-level form of republic we have, with a division of powers between state and federal government, and with the federal government being superior. (A confederation would have the state government superior.) For some things, that may make sense. For selecting a president who is supposed to serve all the people, without regional or demographic bias, it's simply undemocratic that some people have more influence than others over the selection. Whatever reason you have for preferring that undemocratic situation, "we are not a democracy" doesn't work as a valid reason for not changing it.

[Recursion]

13. We are both a republic and a democracy. Those are orthogonal questions

We are a republic in that our head of state is not a monarch. We are a democracy in that the legitimacy of our government is derived from the consent of the people.

[FBaggins]

15. The interesting thing is that the words here distract from the reality

People are trying to say "we are 'x' - and therefore should determine the presidency in this particular way"

So we argue over what label "x" is appropriate... without ever coming to grips with the fact that whatever label should be used, we "are" what the Constitution says that we are. You can call us a blueberry muffin for all I care... but this blueberry muffine is a country that picks our President through the Electoral College, not by popular vote - and everyone knew it going into the race.

We can debate what we should be, but not what we are. When enough of us are convinced that we change the Constitution... then, and only then, will we be a different type of baked good.

[Goblinmonger]

27. We are a republic in that each sovereign state retained power as

it came into the republic. The EC is one of those powers.

[Coyotl]

19. One such purpose might be to NOT elect trump.

Still can happen, especially when Trump shows the world how unfit he is and who he will hire, nothing but the best White Nationalist conspiracy theorists.[center]

[Goblinmonger]

28. I would absolutely agree with you.

I think many of those that argued for the creation of the EC expected that it would have the power to come together and say "not that turd." Don't know if that would happen in the current climate.

[lunamagica]

21. It is Horrible NOW. Thr candidates campaigh in a few states and the rest get

Last edited Mon Nov 28, 2016, 08:02 PM - Edit history (1)

ignored. There is one electoral vote per 251,129 residents of the seven smallest states, compared to one electoral vote per 641,531 Illinoisans. People from those small states have more than 2.5 times the clout per resident in electing the president. Wyoming has 3.4 times has much clout per resident as Illinois.

How can you support this?

One vote, one person. They should all have the same value. If things don't change, then stop telling people teir vote counts.

That's such a lie

[Goblinmonger]

29. Without it, 6-8 cities get all the attention.

That doesn't seem like the system we live in either.

Wyoming has 3.4 times more clout than Illinois. So, the logical outcome would be that Wyoming got 3.4 times more attention from the candidates than Illinois did. Which absofuckinglutely didn't happen. What's your point?

[pnwmom]

38. Yes, it was designed to protect the system of slavery in the rural south.

And it still weights the votes of mostly white people in rural states more heavily than diverse voters in urban areas.

[niyad]

46. read the federalist 10. the reason for the ec was laid out right there--so that the

manufacturing class could not take charge of the landowners.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Federalist 10 is about factions (parties) being shitty.

And, yeah, the EC was partially to make it so that parties didn't become a thing. We lost that battle.

[Farmgirl1961]

6. A question -- are we still counting or is this the final tally?

[Coyotl]

35. Still counting and still unofficial resutls in some places.

CA SoS is the place to watch for the most remaining ballots, or at least last I checked that was so. I had extrapolated a 2.5 million margin for Hillary without sophisticated analysis, just using the results to that point.

[budkin]

7. It's like more salt just keeps pouring into the wound

Something is just not right.

[AgadorSparticus]

40. Yep. The stench is getting stronger and stronger every day

[blueseas]

11. You said it

Recommend 1000!

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Can't someone petition

a court to declare the Electoral College rigged?

It's against one man, one vote for sure now

It's also unequally administered in the states

Isn't there a good Constitutional lawyer in the house?

[Travis_0004]

32. No

Something is unconstitutional if it is not in accordance or inconstant with the constitution.

Since the constitution specifically lays out how to appoint electors and how they vote, doing it any other way would be unconstitutional. So legally, as of today, this is the only way it can be done. If you want to change it, you have to amend the constitution, which is almost an impossibly, since the small states would never go for the idea.

[Coyotl]

18. 2,243,231 now, yesterday was 2,231,630

and climbing at regular intervals still. [center]

Retweet this @ the Donald so all his followers see it:

[ancianita]

20. It's not over yet. The Electoral College must take a founder's writing to heart.

From Federalist Paper 68:

"...the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union ... as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States ...

... by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration ...

... we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration..."

Alexander Hamilton, first US Treasurer

They need to heed his words when they cast their votes on December 19.

[anamandujano]

34. "Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity,"

Describes Trump to a T. No pun intended.

Thanks for digging this up.

[Farmgirl1961]

30. Any ideas on when the vote count will be finished? Likely before December 19th?

[importDavid]

31. Can you imagine..

If Hillary reaches 50%?

[Coyotl]

36. That can't happen at this point. She may reach a 2.5 million lead.

Yet another 2.5 million more votes would be needed to approach that mark.

[pnwmom]

39. She won't because of the third party candidates. That's something Obama didn't

have to contend with.

[Dem2]

37. 2.333M 48.2 - 46.5; 1.7% lead

[oberliner]

42. She dominated the vote in the big cities

Population centers went to her by large margins.

Unfortunately, those margins don't actually matter in terms of the election.

[colsohlibgal]

45. She Should Be President

This is twice in 16 years. It has to go but why didn't Dems go into a full press to deep 6 it after 2000?

It may well be much more common now.

Anyone who wins by approaching two and a half million votes should be the winner