Trump lauds Electoral College as Clinton wins popular vote
Nov 27 2016 by Ken Ortega
It is the fifth time in history that a nominee has won the popular vote but not the Electoral College. He said the Electoral College system basically nullifies the votes of anyone who doesn't live in a swing state.
Let's take a trip to a famous college.
Sixty-six percent of Democrats are in favor of discarding the Electoral College for a popular vote system to elect the USA president, while 14 percent want to keep the current system in place, the poll showed. But the president overwhelmingly won the electoral college, 332 to 206. We all hold a set of values and beliefs, and half of the country who voted showed that they are afraid of a Trump presidency.
Presidential electors are not required to vote for a particular candidate under the Constitution. Millions have signed a petition urging electors to vote for Clinton instead, no matter how their state voted. Not only would that make presidential elections less fraught with uncertainty, it would produce candidates with specific appeal in these areas rather than having to choose which authoritarian gets to wield power on behalf of which favored interests. The candidate who wins each state wins all of its electors (with the exception of ME and Nebraska).
(3) Loophole closed, no more Trumps or Bushes, no constitutional amendment needed. For example, President Barack Obama received nearly 5 million more votes than his 2014 opponent Mitt Romney - about 4 percent of the total.
In fact, if we look at the ten states with the highest minority populations and compare them to the states with the ten with the lowest minority populations, the results are just as glaringly unfair.
In the current flawed system, if a presidential candidate does not reach the 270-vote mark, it then falls to the U.S. House of Representatives to decide.
Do electors HAVE to cast their vote based on the outcome of the election? "If it were to go to straight popular vote, then potentially the favorite son or daughter of a state like California, Texas or NY could easily amass more votes than many small states together".
Trump won an impressive victory for sure, but an analysis of the voting results by Karl Rove in today's Wall Street Journal points to a different conclusion: Hillary Clinton severely under-performed.
Despite being frequently criticized, the Electoral College has never seen a serious challenge.
But on Tuesday, the president-elect changed his tune, tweeting that the system that got him elected is "actually genius".
This election was the second time in 20 years that the candidate who got the most votes failed to win the presidency, but a bill that has passed in several states could change that.
Mr Trump is now scrambling to make 4,000 government appointments, including within his cabinet, his national intelligence and security teams and a supreme court justice. According to NPV's research, battleground states get more federal grants, more federal disaster declarations and more waivers from certain federal regulations. Clinton won NY and California.
What happens when a constitutional provision that has existed since the founding of the present American government works as designed?
Jud Lounsbury is a political reporter based in Madison, Wisconsin, and a regular contributor to The Progressive.