That's what Clinton did that night and surprisingly graciously in her speech the next day. What strikes me as odd is that Clinton supporters aren't following the directive of their own candidate: "Donald Trump is our next President. We owe it to him to give him a chance." Obama was also very gracious about the whole thing. When the election is done the candidates return to civil behavior. I sure wish all of their supporters would follow suit!
That's what Clinton did that night and surprisingly graciously in her speech the next day. What strikes me as odd is that Clinton supporters aren't following the directive of their own candidate: "Donald Trump is our next President. We owe it to him to give him a chance." Obama was also very gracious about the whole thing. When the election is done the candidates return to civil behavior. I sure wish all of their supporters would follow suit!
This - comparing the electoral results to an actual popular vote election is essentially apples to oranges.
Exactly. The electoral college has been the method to elect our President since the beginning.
No matter your whining, and faux disgust, its the way the United States does business.
Its happened that way for over 200 years and it will continue for the next 200 or more.
Get the fawk over it and accept the results like we had to do for the last 7 1/2 years.
Pet your trauma puppy, and get on with your live like the Republicans have in the past.
If we get rid of the Electoral College there won't be any reason to hold elections because that's not what they'll be. It'll be saying to New York, California and a couple of northeastern states that they get to pick the leaders for the whole country because that's precisely what it will do.
I pointed out some time ago how many US Presidents were elected after not having won a majority of the popular vote. I can't remember offhand now how many it was, but it was a bit of a shocker. Quite a few, really.
How many "red" voters in New York, California, and other "blue" states stayed home because they knew their vote wouldn't matter?
How many "blue" voters in Oklahoma, Texas, and other "red" states stayed home because they knew their vote wouldn't matter?
What effect might either of those have had on local elections? The existing system already allows candidates to pander to high-population (high elector) and swing states and essentially ignore the others. Personally I'd have no issue with "one man, one vote".
Or perhaps since this is supposed to be a constitutional republic how about simplifying the system to "one state, one vote" with the state's vote determined by the method that particular state chooses to use (popular vote, vote of state Representatives, flip of the coin, whatever)?
Last edited:
- In 1824 Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but got less than 50 percent of the electoral votes. John Quincy Adams became the next president when he was picked by the House of Representatives.
- In 1876 Samuel Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election when Rutherford B. Hayes got 185 electoral votes to Tilden’s 184.
- In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the popular vote but lost the election when Benjamin Harrison got 233 electoral votes to Cleveland’s 168.
- In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the election to George Bush. In the most highly contested election in modern history, the U.S. Supreme Court stopped the Florida recount of ballots, giving Bush the state’s 25 electoral votes for a total of 271 to Gore’s 255.
Grover Cleveland was elected president (1884) then lost his re-election campaign (1888) and came back again to win the presidency for a second time. (1892)
Barack Obama is the nation’s 44rd president but in reality there have only been 43 presidents. Grover Cleveland is counted twice as our 22nd and 24th president because he was elected for two nonconsecutive terms.
I won't deny that's an interesting thought. Here in good 'ole Austin, Travis county was blue, and all surrounding counties (even the ones that included major Austin suburbs) went red. The other places that went blue of note were border counties (guess why, right?).
But to your last point, we are a Union of States first. That is how it was originally conceived, although that ideology is dying because of how connected our country is now, both through infrastructure and information. Now States feel like a necessary subdivision of government for delegation, rather than a way for states to operate independently. The only thing that brings this thought back to my mind are some key swing issues where states have widely different laws (guns, marijuana, etc).
Similar threads
