Should I be concerned over Electoral College/Popular Vote splits?

35 Questions

This is part 19 in a series of 35 questions. It is based on a series of questions answered by John Hawkins for here, and here.

19. Is there any point at which the electoral college/popular vote split would become a concern?

A few years ago, I had looked into the electoral college. I had looked at alternative plans and after weighing the pros and cons of each, I determined that the fairest system was the electoral college as it’s set up. I’m not saying it’s perfect; I don’t believe such a system exists.

First, you have to remember that it’s the states that elect the President, not the people. Each state casts ballots based on how the people of that state vote. In other words, the presidential election is based on fifty-one popular votes, not one, and in all but two states, the candidate that wins the popular vote, gets all the electoral votes for that state.

Politics aside, it’s not hard to see that in order to win the popular vote, the candidates would need to only concentrate on the areas where the most people live and make them happy, i.e., Los Angeles, Atlanta, New York, Chicago, etc. The Electoral College forces candidates to pay attention to areas of the country that would otherwise be ignored if we had a straight popular vote. You may not like Donald Trump as a person, but his message resonated with people across the entire country, while Hillary Clinton’s did not.

Hillary’s message only resonated in 457 counties across the country. That’s 15.6% of the 3113 counties in the country. Liberals would like us to believe that people in those few countries are smarter than the rest of the country and don’t have a problem saying it. Their condescension is infuriating. As much as liberals scream about fairness, the Popular Vote is the epitome of unfair, but that’s what they’re calling for.

Another reason the electoral college is a good idea is it shields the rest of the country from the stupidity exercised in California: allowing illegal, non-citizens to vote, and possibly vote in federal elections, which should be against federal law in my opinion, but regardless of the legality, 100 million illegal aliens voting in California won’t have an effect on the Presidential election because of the Electoral College, but it would have an effect if we had a Popular Vote.

In the end, though, it’s the 30 of 50 states the Trump won that counts, because people are fond of forgetting that this country is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. The Founding Fathers devised a system that keeps the 10 biggest States/Cities from ruling the rest of the country by default because of population, but the system still retains an advantage for those with the biggest populations by allowing them larger numbers of electoral votes. What keeps the system more fair than a purely Popular Vote, is that the smaller states still have a voice. I know, it’s not an idea that liberals are comfortable with–opposing views having a voice–but I believe it’s a brilliant system, and actually fairer than any alternative I’ve seen.

Is there any point at which the electoral college/popular vote split would become a concern? No. I will never be concerned over a split between a system that pushes a candidate to campaign across the entire country or just the major metropolises.

Is The Election An Indicator of Change?

I don’t remember where I heard it, or maybe read it. But as a result of Trump winning the election, the accusation was leveled: People are afraid of a changing America.

Since most of the change we have seen over the last eight years has been forced by government–a top-down change–this election may actually show that people haven’t changed the way some people would like America to have changed.

For example, gay marriage was/is illegal in most states because when placed on the ballot, it was rejected by popular vote. The only reason this changed, is because Federal government overstepped its bounds and forced states to change; the Supreme Court should have refused to take the case.

So, I ask again. Has America really changed?

Related Posts:

Hillary Clinton Lost To Donald Trump: Here’s Why

If conservatives believed in the marketplace of ideas, wouldn't they want everyone to vote?

If you think Trump was elected because of racism, bigotry, prejudice, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., you’re living in an alternate reality. While some of these things certainly exist, it’s on a smaller scale than Democrats believe, and it wasn’t enough to swing the election. The real reason Donald Trump won is because Hillary Clinton lost.

Most everyone can agree that Donald Trump was not the ideal Republican candidate. The man is deeply flawed. But, so is Hillary Clinton. But, so are we. No one is good, not one. Whether Clinton or Trump is the better person is debatable, but in the end, what matters, is that Hillary Clinton, as a candidate, is the more deeply flawed.

How? Let me list some of the reasons:

  • Trump wants to build a wall. Whether practical or not, the message is that he will work to keep illegal immigrants out, and deport the illegal immigrants that are here. Democrat’s refusal to distinguish between legal and illegal hurt them.
  • Trump wants to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the country. He wants to make sure they’re properly vetted. When 99% of terrorist attacks are caused by Muslims, this is common sense; Ismlorealism if you will. When a candidate refuses to acknowledge terror attacks for what they are, it shows a lack of concern for American lives and security.
  • Trumps wants to make American great again. Once upon a time, American was looked up to in the world. Now we’re frowned upon. It’s time to reverse that. Many people want a President that likes this country, instead of one who appears to not like it. They want a President to look out for the citizens of this country, after all, the position is President of the United States, not President of the United Nations.

These issues were a big deal, but should not have been. The insistence of Democrats that they have to have it all or have it all, probably helped drive voter turn-out against Hillary. Here are more reasons people didn’t vote for Hillary:

This isn’t a discussion of right or wrong. It’s simply a list of reasons Hillary lost to Donald Trump. There are more. I could go on. This is enough for now.

Related Posts:

In Good Conscience, Christian, Vote Republican

​"I can’t, in good conscience, vote for either candidate." As a Christian, and an American, I have a problem with this idea, because while neither candidate is desirable, one IS better than the other. That’s not to say, you shouldn’t vote for a third party candidate because that’s the party you identify with, and you truly like that candidate, but if you’re voting for what’s in the best interest of the U.S., it’s not the way to go. Personally, I identify closest with the Constitution Party, but lets face it, they probably won’t garner enough votes to even show up in the final results.

Because the candidate I want to win, doesn’t stand a chance, my next question is what’s best for the country. The answer to that is simple, #NoMoreDemocrats. So I vote for the candidate that has the best chance of beating the Democrat, and in just about every case, that’s a Republican. The bottom line is no matter how bad the character of a candidate is, it’s the policies that that candidate will bring.

The winner of the election is going to be a Republican or Democrat. No other candidate stands a chance. It will be one of the two. So, the realistic choices for President, from a Christian standpoint, are the Democrat whose policies suck, or the Republican whose policies suck a lot less. If you look at it that way, the choice should be easy. So, in good conscience, I have to vote for the Republican.

Related Posts: