This is true, the electoral college system absolutely benefits the Democrats more than the Republicans....in fact, people were talking about it before they didn't get the result they wanted in the 2016 election. They were asking if another Republican will ever be elected due to the electoral college advantage Democrats have.
There's no logic to that. Democrats have now lost two elections to the EC, Republicans haven't lost one. I am not sure who was saying that but I haven't said that. I never bought into the "blue wall" and all that crap like others. Clinton made massive strategic mistakes that cost her the Rust Belt. Her own husband told her to put more time into the rust belt and yes, she was totally out of touch - I found it crazy she was spending time in Arizona while not having been to Michigan. She was complacent, arrogant, and totally misread the electorate despite evidence otherwise. The fact that she was shocked in Michigan by Sanders should have been a huge wake-up call. It wasn't. And she lost. The email thing definitely hurt her. Can't believe how many people buy into the nonsense she committed a crime.
Again with the insults. Are seriously trying to convince everyone here that you are 12 years old and proud of it?
Like I said kiddo, it's not insults, they are accurate descriptions of the level of competence you are showing. I don't like it any more than you do.....hell I probably like it less.
Electoral College is ‘vestige’ of slavery, say some Constitutional scholars Madison, now known as the “Father of the Constitution,” was a slave-owner in Virginia, which at the time was the most populous of the 13 states if the count included slaves, who comprised about 40 percent of its population. During that key speech at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Madison said that with a popular vote, the Southern states, “could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” Madison knew that the North would outnumber the South, despite there being more than half a million slaves in the South who were their economic vitality, but could not vote. His proposition for the Electoral College included the “three-fifths compromise,” where black people could be counted as three-fifths of a person, instead of a whole. This clause garnered the state 12 out of 91 electoral votes, more than a quarter of what a president needed to win. “None of this is about slaves voting,” said Finkelman, who wrote a paper on the origins of the Electoral College for a symposium after Gore lost. “The debates are in part about political power and also the fundamental immorality of counting slaves for the purpose of giving political power to the master class.” He said the Electoral College’s three-fifths clause enabled Thomas Jefferson, who owned more than a hundred slaves, to beat out in 1800 John Adams, who was opposed to slavery, since the South had a stronghold. ... Not all academics agree that slavery was the driving force behind the Electoral College, though most agree there’s a connection.
The connection of course being only that the less populated colonies were typically those who had slaves. That's the ONLY connection. Having slaves has nothing to do with the actual reason why states with small populations would want to have a say as to who was filling the executive branch. It's a totally irrelevant factor thrown in as an emotional appeal by either cynical or stupid people in an effort to sway stupid people.
Bobbythegreat below disagrees with most of the experts. I am guessing that he was overwhelmed by own his own political narrative. We all should keep Bobbytheoverwhelmed in our prayers. Hopefully with time he can make a complete recovery.
That is absolutely not what "most of the experts" think....seriously kid, you've shown that you don't even understand the fundamental basics of the style of government the United States uses....why keep embarrassing yourself here? I promise you are not too old to head to school and learn a bit.
SMH, this is sad. Honestly kid, you don't know enough to know what "most of the experts" think. Just give it up. You came with a stupid, uneducated opinion, you got schooled, now go and try to learn from it. I mean, **** man, you came here not even knowing that the United States is a representative republic instead of a democracy....do you REALLY think you are going to convince anyone that you know what you are talking about? Serious question.
I used to be a big-state living whiny baby about the EC when a margin this thin happened 16 years ago, but America is a land of diversity. Giving little states EC votes acknowledges and facillitates more of a regional identity that would otherwise be ignored by a simple yay/nay of the masses. With the obscene amount of power (and growing) given to the president, it should be a more deliberate process. The more interesting question would be to split California to get 2-4 more Senate seats and marshal a stronger Republican influence in state politics (at least for the south or Valley). Texas would be too proud to split up, but this could become fluid if the urban areas inside the Texas Triangle overwhelms the rural areas in population. Donuts anyone? Looks like Jill Stein will take one for the team if she raises enough money. No way in Hill Clinton's going to call for a recount. I assumed she would if the margins were tighter, but doing it at this point in time would make her look extremely petty and hypocritical.
I am guessing that state splitting would take Congressional approval and would be DOA. If California split into two states, you bet Texas and every state would want to split, so as to not lose power in the Senate.
Having every big coastal state split into "fun size" states would probably shut these whiny sore losers up, but the price these states would pay is losing their large nationsized warchests and industrial clout, not only regionally but also internationally. I think there are more red states willing to let California break up if only to minimize the liberal menace and bastion (depending on how you look at it). Congress would welcome the process but State Congresses would not.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-won-indiana-home-of-his-running-mate/article/2606826 In a recent op-ed, political Svengali Karl Rove correctly noted that history is against the same party winning the presidency three terms in a row. In fact, George H.W. Bush's win in 1988 is the only example in the last 60 years. Rove used this factoid to make the case against Hillary Clinton winning in 2016. This electoral history, however, is misleading for one very important reason: The Electoral College advantage Democrats now have due to the big blue states. In the six elections since 1988, Republicans have only won twice. Those two victories by George W. Bush barely hit the 270 electoral vote threshold: 271 in 2000 and 286 in 2004. Don't forget that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000, losing Florida by a mere 537 votes. In contrast, the four Democratic wins in 1992, 1996, 2008, and 2012 hit 370, 379, 365, and 332 electoral votes. Why such lopsided wins? Rove’s historical guide is significantly weakened by the low margin-of-error strategy to which the Republican candidate must adhere. Specifically, the Republican candidate must nearly run the table on the battleground states in order to squeak into the White House, whereas the Democratic candidate has multiple pathways to victory. Let me break it down by state and electoral votes. The Democrat will almost always win the following states: California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Republicans haven't won New York, Oregon, Washington, or Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan's 1984 landslide win. They haven’t won California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania since 1988. Those states are worth 183 electoral votes. Thus, the Democrat likely enters the 2016 election with a base of 242 electoral votes. The Republican will almost always win Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Those states give the Republican a base of 170 electoral votes. This electoral vote allocation leaves the Democrat just 28 electoral votes from The White House, while the Republican needs an additional 100 electoral votes to win. There are only 126 electoral votes left among the 11 battleground states. This assumes Colorado and Virginia really remain toss-up states, which is doubtful. Thus, the Republican must win 79 percent of the remaining electoral votes. To put a starker gloss on the Republican’s tough predicament, a loss in just Florida ends the race. Period. So, while the Democrats are trying to turn reliable red Texas blue, based on long-term demographic trends they see as favorable, Republicans should be doubling-down efforts in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio and seeking breakthroughs in California, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Why those five blue states? Because liberal-progressive policies decimated those states fiscally, thereby giving Republicans a strong opportunity to present voters with clear contrasts. Additionally, left-wing federal and state mandates are crushing farmers, energy producers, and job creators in those states. On a more practical level, if Republicans can make headway in those states, Democrats will have to spend precious resources shoring them up. Every dollar spent in expensive media markets in blue states is a dollar not spent in battleground states or Texas. We will see this November if Illinois voters drop inept Democrat governor Pat Quinn for a more fiscally responsible Republican alternative. Voters in Michigan, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania already made that decision, but more needs to be done to turn those states truly purple. History is a reliable guide upon which to make predictions about the future. It depends, however, on the timeframes you use to make those predictions. Democrats may not in fact win a third straight term in 2016, but the electoral history since 1988 gives them a much smoother path than Republicans. It is time to invest even more in permanent outreach efforts in key states. Unless it wants to continue winning just two of six elections, the Right must expand the electoral map. The sooner, the better.
I'm not sure sure what you are getting at. One would think that most large nations are subdivided into regional units, be they called states or not. As an example, Germany is a democracy and is made up of 16 regional states. Mexico is made up of states. Canada is made up of provinces and territories.
The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704 In the closest race for president in Michigan's history, Republican Donald Trump is hanging on to a 10,704 vote win over Democrat Hillary Clinton. The Michigan Secretary of State posted results Wednesday that were submitted by the state's 83 county clerks on Tuesday after the votes were reviewed and certified by each county. Before that compiled count, Trump held a 13,107 lead over Clinton. But after each county certified its results, the lead shrunk to 10,704, with the biggest chunk coming from Wayne County, which showed that Clinton had gotten 565 more votes than originally tallied by the county. The state's Board of Canvassers will officially certify the results on Nov. 28. The electoral college in all the states, including Michigan's 16 electors, will cast their votes on Dec. 19. "Many people have asked about Michigan’s process for counting ballots and certifying election results. Please be aware that all 1,521 Michigan cities and townships completed ballot counting and reported unofficial results by the morning of Wednesday, Nov. 9," according to a statement on the Secretary of State's website. "The county canvassing boards, as they do after every election, then began their work to review and certify the results from each precinct." ►Related:Michigan elections director casts doubt on vote-hacking concerns ►Related:Betsy DeVos tapped by Donald Trump for education secretary Across the nation, Trump won 306 electoral votes -- including Michigan's 16 -- to 232 for Clinton. In the popular vote, Clinton holds a lead of more than 2 million votes. Trump is the first Republican presidential candidate since 1988 to win Michigan. The vote totals that will be submitted to the state Canvassers Board on Nov. 28 are: Donald J. Trump, Republican: 2,279,543 Hillary Clinton, Democratic: 2,268,839 Gary Johnson, Libertarian: 172,136 Jill Stein, Green: 51,463 Darrell L. Castle, U.S. Taxpayers: 16,139 Evan McMullin, write-in: 8,177 Emidio Mimi Soltysik, Natural Law: 2,209 Michael Maturen, write-in: 517 Tom Hoefling, write-in: 95 Laurence Kotlikoff, write-in: 87 Ben Hartnell, write-in: 39 Monica Moorehead, write-in: 30 Cherunda Fox, write-in: 10 http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/23/donald-trump-wins-michigan-votes/94360852/
Newsflash, Clinton didn't even pretend to give two ***** about mid-western underemployed Americans, and instead chose to focus on illegal immigrants becoming citizens. Wow, so hard to believe she lost a democratic stronghold like the rustbelt with that kind of message.
