41 thoughts on “The Electoral College”

1. They hate it because the Democrats lost. Before, they were crowing about the electoral lock they had and how Trump’s path to victory was very limited. Now it’s the sky is falling. I have no use for people whose only principle is power.

   1. I have no use for people whose only principle is power.

   2. Democrats loved the Electoral College before they hated it. Before the election, I saw several say ‘Yes, Trump may win the popular vote, but there’s no way he can win the Electoral College.’

      And they really wouldn’t like a switch to electing by popular vote, because then you’d need Federal voting regulations to ensure it was fair. No more electoral fraud 4 U!

      1. Without the electoral vote we’d have to dictate a unified standard nationwide of how we conduct elections. States with all vote by mail, all vote at polling places, and mixed couldn’t reasonably be compared. States with electronic voting and paper ballots can’t reasonably be compared. And then there’s the impact of local factors, like weather on election day or major State or local elections.

         And then consider the pain of recounts done nationwide.

      2. “you’d need Federal voting regulations to ensure it was fair.”

         One of Rand’s tweets mentioned that, too. The people who would like NPV probably would see that as a bonus.

   3. I was about to observe that the don’t hate Federalism so much as they hate losing

2. Did the NYT care about this before the Democrats lost power?

   Almost certainly not. But it’s also worth asking if you would be defending the electoral college so eloquently if candidates like Obama and Clinton were losing the popular vote but gaining office via electoral vote majorities. It’s easy to impugn the motives of others; it’s far more difficult to do an honest examination of our own.

   1. Try the blog’s search engine, troll.

      1. I just want to point out here that “Jim Davis” is not “Jim” or the Jim of the distant past who got banned. Jim Davis has productively contributed to Transterrestrial discussions for a number of years.

         1. I don’t think I’ve ever banned any Jims. The only person I recall banning (other than anonymous trolls) is Brian Swidersky, for his ongoing bigotry.

            1. I was thinking of Jim Harris who disappeared some point in late 2008, according to Google. Don’t know if he was banned or not, but I sure don’t miss the creep.

               And I apologize in advance if that brings up bad memories for anyone.

         2. I disagree about Jim Davis’ productivity. As this is the second thread in a week where he dropped a comment and ran away.

            Personally, I think Jim Davis ought to know Rand’s position, and decided to make the comment anyway, because yeah, Jim Davis has been here before in relation to the topic, and making a statement and running away is what he does.

            Oh, and so no one is confused, the Rand referenced about is Rand Simberg, not Ayn Rand; in case you might be confused by the use of a first name.

   2. But it’s also worth asking if you would be defending the electoral college so eloquently if candidates like Obama and Clinton were losing the popular vote but gaining office via electoral vote majorities.

      Of course I would be, and I’m insulted by the question.

      1. Lighten up, Rand.

         Don’t you remember in 2012 how those crowds of Latter-Day Saints were picketing the state houses when the Electoral Votes were cast?

         1. Not really, but I fail to see the relevance. I sure as hell wasn’t.

            1. That’s my point exactly.

               Mitt Romney lost in 2012, and there were no crowds of his co-religionists protesting much of anything.

      2. “Of course I would be”

         I personally would be unhappy, but that’s how the system is designed to work. I wouldn’t go all Princess Stompy Feet about it.

   3. It’s in the constitution. So, yes, if Trump had won the popular vote and not the EC, it would have been fair.

      Trump ignored California because it was lost to begin with, and that is the state where the popular vote excess seems to have come from.

      1. Hillary won by quite a large margin in New York as well, most of which came from the greater New York City area. The rest of the state went for Trump, but they were outnumbered.

         So the progs want us to set a popular vote for President, so the West Coast clans along with greater New York can pick a Democratic president every four years…

   4. it’s far more difficult to do an honest examination of our own.

      There are plenty of things to criticize Hillary over. Following the law wouldn’t be a likely complaint.

3. They seem to have forgotten about their famous, impenetrable “blue wall.” Now that it has been breached, they’re whining.

   1. Blue Wall, Super Delegates, the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in the 2008 Primary, but Obama still became the candidate. It’s not forgotten, it is just ignored in order to make ignorant comments like Jim’s above. The comment serves no purpose other than to show off his own ignorance, yet people like him make it thinking it means so much more.

      1. C’mon people, give Jim-who-gives-his-complete-name some slack — it is not “Jim.”

         1. Are you claiming he is not Jim although that’s the name he uses? Is that your way of telling us he is a sockpuppet?

            1. “Jim” is a very common name, and in this case, it’s long-time commenter (and sci.space.* denizen) Jim Davis.

            2. It’s pretty obvious that they are two separate people. The “Jim” Jim would have denied the Democrats did any such thing then and deny they are doing any such thing now. Mr. Davis is just asking if the reaction would be the same if the tables were turned.

            3. Jim Jim would have been saying how racist the EC is and how supporting it is like wanting slaves. And he would be defending the right for the Democrat party to wage a campaign of intimidation against the electors.

               Jim Davis is merely asking how people would respond if the shoe was on the other foot. But in that event, being upset over losing would be a vastly different response. No violence, no intimidating the electors, no riots in the street or trying to gank people in traffic. If there were protests, it would be like the Tea Party, vocal yet peaceful.

               People would be upset about Hillary not about the process.

               Now, if the intimidation campaign waged against the electors were successful, then things would be different.

            4. Jim Davis is merely asking how people would respond if the shoe was on the other foot.

               That’s a legitimate question. But he was asking how I would.

            5. No. Jim would… squirrels. Ever wonder why their fluffy tails are so unappreciated?

            6. “Jim” is a very common name, and in this case, it’s long-time commenter (and sci.space.* denizen) Jim Davis.

               Ok, you convinced me; Paul is right; lightened up. It was a joke. All of you!

            7. But he was asking how I would.

               Exactly. And it was no doubt intentional, because noting that others are hypocritical at times in a thread about hypocrisy, without actually pointing out the other’s hypocrisy would be a puerile comment. So Jim Davis (don’t want to confuse everyone) decided to make it personal to Rand, who has been consistent for many years now on the electoral college. Here was Rand, providing his own archive link even, just after the election.

               I really don’t understand the support given to Jim Davis (other than I guess many of you know him personally) after he wrote such a stupid remark in an ugly fashion. Certainly, we can respect his right to make dumb remarks; but if he is going to claim hypocrisy on Rand’s part, he needs to prove it. Personally, I think Jim Davis earned quite a bit of ridicule, as well the many Democrats acting like fools post election.

            8. Squirrels? Karl, now I’m thinking you are confusing bob with Jim. Jim, like Jim Davis, is usually on topic.

   2. There is an important lesson here for the Democrat’s factions. If you turn against the party, anything goes in terms of attacking you. People who voted for Obama and for Bill Clinton are now considered worse than the KKK. It is very similar to the hatred directed at minorities that don’t vote Democrat.

      Also, when you no longer serve the party’s interests, you will be thrown under the bus. Poor white people and blue collar workers used to be the Democrat base but when the Democrats decided they didn’t like them anymore, they did everything they could to destroy their lives.

      Blacks, Asians, Latinos, and gays should all take note. A party whose ideology is pitting one race, class, and gender against another will have no problem sacrificing your race, class, or gender when the time comes.

4. They don’t care about right or wrong; they only care about whining (not to be confused with winning.)

5. I think it’s a hoot that, despite (or maybe because of) the intensive campaign by the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) to try to bully electors to defect from Trump, more of them tried to defect from Hillary than Trump.

   1. The media has been talking a lot about fake news and narratives but one of the main things that was unexamined in all of the media coverage was the split in the Democrat party over the rigged primary and internal party turmoil.

      They focussed a lot on Republican disagreements but it apparently wasn’t enough to prevent Trump from winning. Meanwhile, they didn’t cover an issue at all that was apparently big enough to prevent Hillary from winning. Maybe her loss would have been bigger if Democrat discontent was actually discussed in the media.

      That so many electors defected from Hillary is real world proof of this split and yet is still goes unexamined.

      1. But Bernie gave his support!

         And he did, but it was pretty obvious that he did so after being bought off to do so. “Sell out” would be the word to describe Bernie to many of his supporters. Still, they rather have him than Clinton. And it’s not just because of Comey protecting her from serious legal charges.

         Let’s consider one of Hillary’s positions. She claims to represent women, because she is one.

         Putting aside her husband; she was happy to take support of Madonna; whose contributions were to provide a free concert (which she did) and promise BJ to Hillary voters (which she did not). I’m fairly certain young women on the left were not energized by the notion that they should perform oral sex in order to help Hillary win an election. The media covered this a positive, if lighthearted sentiment from Madonna; but I’m fairly certain many voters took it as a negative.

         Along those lines, Susan Saradon made very effective arguments against voting for Hillary, including noting that Jill Stein is also a woman and worthy of a vote. Had Hillary received the votes that went to Jill Stein; she would have won Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In all those states, Gary Johnson out performed Jill Stein 3 to 1 yet Trump still won the state, but I digress.

         Potential supporters from the left cost Hillary the Presidency, as you are noting Wodun. Just like potential supporters on the right nearly cost Trump the Presidency, but that aspect (siphoning votes away from Trump to Johnson) was discussed prior to the election. This allowed more time to sway people, such as Rand (whose California vote for anyone was near meaningless, which is why he supported before the election breaking the state into parts). Hillary’s campaign strategy was to play out the clock on her negatives. She would have done better putting them all in front (but that might have cost her the Primary for obvious reasons), so that they wouldn’t haunt her in the general election. Actually, more to the point; the Democrats would have done better properly weighing all of Hillary’s negatives in the Primary, so they wouldn’t have a candidate that would haunt them in the general election.

         1. Actually, more to the point; the Democrats would have done better properly weighing all of Hillary’s negatives in the Primary, so they wouldn’t have a candidate that would haunt them in the general election.

            That’s true. Also, the Sanders Trump debates would have been very entertaining.

6. Electing president by popular vote would require federal oversight of all state voting processes.

   I think they (Jim Davis, probably Jim, Democrats, and progressives) know that and they want exactly that. And yes, it would be radical. It would also make it easier to manipulate vote totals such as we saw in Detroit.

   The electoral college protects the state right to determine their own method of conducting and collecting votes.

   1. Democrats were a little schizophrenic during the election in regard to hacking the system. When Trump said there could be shenanigans, the Democrats and the media mocked him relentlessly. When Democrats needed a scapegoat to split off Republican voters try and get some sympathy for Hillary, there were voting system integrity issues that required federal control.

      They don’t need a popular vote to take over voting, they just need a bogeyman to justify the feds seizing control.

      It turns out the only ones trying to hack into voting systems was the DHS. Was this just to make sure the system was safe or was it to manipulate vote totals? Unfortunately, the latter wouldn’t be all that surprising considering how Democrats have weaponized federal agencies.

7. @ Rand;

   IMHO, there is no better example of the utter hypocrisy of the left regarding the electoral college than Slate.com

   Here’s what they said in 2012, defending it after Obama won the EC;
   http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

   Here’s what they say now: It’s an instrument of white supremacy and sexisim.
   http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/11/11/the_electoral_college_is_an_instrument_of_white_supremacy_and_sexism.html

Comments are closed.