Elections Republicans Have Won Popular Vote Once Since 1988 : Update Lost Again

[Aegon Spengler]

The majority of the people don't matter in Presidential elections. The majority of states do.

The majority of people can elect their Senators, Representatives and local politicians just fine.

The electoral college privileges' voters in one area over voters in another, in the same election, for the same position. You're trying to argue that's fair, and you're doing a poor job so far.

 

[panamaican]

The electoral college privileges' voters in one area over voters in another, in the same election, for the same position. You're trying to argue that's fair, and you're doing a poor job so far.

I'm not arguing that it's fair. I'm arguing that it is irrelevant.

Let me give you a task - find me the last President that was elected without a majority of the states voting for him?

 

[Jack V Savage]

They intended for the less populous states to be able to exert comparative power over the government as the more populous ones.

In the Senate only, and as a result of a compromise rather than some kind of principle that minority rule is good.

And when people go on and on about the popular vote, they spend precious little time on where the popular vote differences exist. If one state has 10 people and 9 states each have 1 person the one state shouldn't be able to dictate to the 9 states just because it has more people. The founders understood this. But people today just say "10 people wanted X and 9 people wanted Y, but the 9 people won and that's bad." No, it's that the 9 states wanted Y and only 1 state wanted X.

The founders intended no such thing with regard to the presidency. The EC wasn't imbalanced in terms of states, and wasn't envisioned as winner-take-all with electors anyway. Each roughly equally sized district was to select an elector, and the idea was that the EC would usually serve as a kind of primary (since they didn't expect parties or for any candidate to usually emerge with a majority of electors), with the House of Representatives (the most democratic body) selecting the actual winner.

That's why the hand wringing about the popular vote misses the mark.

To put it in terms of the most recent election. Trump lost the popular vote. But he won 30 states. 30 > 20.

Bush Jr. lost the popular vote in 2000. He won 30 states. Bush Jr. won 31 states in 2004.

Clinton won 32 and 31 states. Obama won 28 and 26 states.

Bush Sr? 40 states.

The trend? Even though the GOP has only won the popular vote once since 1988, they've never been elected without winning a clear majority of the states. And that is exactly in line with what founders preferred.

You'll find no writing from them saying anything like that (as it would be really dumb, and they weren't dumb, though they did really badly predict how the system would develop), and the system was not designed to award the presidency to whomever got a majority of states. If they wanted it that way, it would have gone to the Senate to decide. You're talking about after-the-fact rationalizations for how the system developed in the 20th century and projecting them to the initial design.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

I'm not arguing that it's fair. I'm arguing that it is irrelevant.

Let me give you a task - find me the last President that was elected without a majority of the states voting for him?

I already explained that it is only irrelevant if you want to reduce the power of people in one place and enhance the power of people in another. If you want to do that, fine, but that requires you to abandon the pretense that Democracy matters to you more than privilege. If it doesn't, say that, but line the rest of your thinking up that way as well and see how it turns out. If you're not comfortable with where that lands you, you shouldn't be comfortable with your argument right now.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Got it. Biden is clearly a great candidate. You're the one who's right and everyone else is duped by propaganda. Including Obama himself who tried to stop Biden from running.

The fact that you cannot argue honestly says more than I can about the strength of your position, and the last sentence makes my point even better. You realize that Obama gave a speech on behalf of Biden in 2020, yes?

 

[BIKES!]

Since 1988 you say???? Well.... Not a shock.

The indoctrinated left is more brainwashed than ever. Basically the Walking Dead

 

[blaseblah]

The fact that you cannot argue honestly says more than I can about the strength of your position, and the last sentence makes my point even better. You realize that Obama gave a speech on behalf of Biden in 2020, yes?

I'm the only one here arguing honestly. I pointed out polling to you and you're deflecting about unsubstantiated propaganda.

According to you, anyone the Democrats nominate is a great candidate, regardless of polling, their record, their age, or any other issues. You are the one most affected by propaganda.

 

[Teppodama]

Question how did the Republican party get to this point where they either outright lose the Presidential election or having to play every trick in the book simply just to sneak into the Presidency via the electoral college? How did the Republican party go from winning Presidential elections in landslides like in 72, 80, 84 and 88 to this sorry state where they win the popular vote once in 32 years(36 after this )November?

Matriculating communism, curated move away from traditional values, curated effort at demonization, politicans more interested in power and money than the service the position is there for. Any number of reasons.

 

[panamaican]

In the Senate only, and as a result of a compromise rather than some kind of principle that minority rule is good.

No, at all levels of government.

The founders intended no such thing with regard to the presidency. The EC wasn't imbalanced in terms of states, and wasn't envisioned as winner-take-all with electors anyway. Each roughly equally sized district was to select an elector, and the idea was that the EC would usually serve as a kind of primary (since they didn't expect parties or for any candidate to usually emerge with a majority of electors), with the House of Representatives (the most democratic body) selecting the actual winner.

And the House of Representatives gave small states disproportionate amounts of power with states, no matter how small, receiving 1 Representative, while more populous states receiving no more than 1 per 30,000. You're a math guy so you know that a state with 30,000 people would have had the same number of representatives as a state with just 5 people. Balancing population size vs voting power.

You'll find no writing from them saying anything like that (as it would be really dumb, and they weren't dumb, though they did really badly predict how the system would develop), and the system was not designed to award the presidency to whomever got a majority of states. If they wanted it that way, it would have gone to the Senate to decide. You're talking about after-the-fact rationalizations for how the system developed in the 20th century and projecting them to the initial design.

You'll find plenty of writing from them about not letting populous states dominate the will of less populous ones.

I never said they wanted the person with the most states to win, I said that it is line with what they preferred. They wanted small states to be able to exercise meaningful power over government. All because they understood that the most populous states don't necessary represent the needs/wants of the less populous ones.

They distinctly did not want the President elected by popular vote.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

I'm not arguing that it's fair. I'm arguing that it is irrelevant.

Let me give you a task - find me the last President that was elected without a majority of the states voting for him?

Just for the record, I respect you and your opinion. I've seen you on here and I think you're an honest dude. I don't believe in your defense of American federalism.

I take a lot of what I think from this article, so judge it and you judge my taste and a lot of where my perspective aligns.

https://chomsky.info/20170105/


--Noam Chomsky (if you e-mail him, he will respond and is very gracious)
"The Electoral College was originally supposed to be a deliberative body drawn from educated and privileged elites. It would not necessarily respond to public opinion, which was not highly regarded by the founders, to put it mildly. “The mass of people … seldom judge or determine right,” as Alexander Hamilton put it during the framing of the Constitution, expressing a common elite view. Furthermore, the infamous 3/5th clause ensured the slave states an extra boost, a very significant issue considering their prominent role in the political and economic institutions. As the party system took shape in the 19th century, the Electoral College became a mirror of the state votes, which can give a result quite different from the popular vote because of the first-past-the-post rule — as it did once again in this election. Eliminating the Electoral College would be a good idea, but it’s virtually impossible as the political system is now constituted. It is only one of many factors that contribute to the regressive character of the [US] political system."

I also like Howard Zinn, so maybe this is too far for you, but I think it's worth considering at least.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm the only one here arguing honestly. I pointed out polling to you and you're deflecting about unsubstantiated propaganda.

I pointed out that whomever Democrats put out is by definition a bad candidate to Republicans and to the portion of the left that is tricked by propaganda against that candidate. Does that mean that I'm saying that every candidate is flawless? All Fridays are days. Are all days Fridays?

 

[ShadowRun]

Well people ever educate themselves about electoral college and give up the popular vote routine? Geez... We all should have horses and not cars because it's cheaper, there would be less deaths on the highway and drunk driving..... come on guys common sense !

 

[ultramanhyata]

It's ironic how those on the right support the EC because they don't want to see a "small handful of states" given the power to determine presidential elections.

While the EC is allowing JUST that - a small handful of states (sometimes literally just 2 or 3) to determine presidential elections.

The reality is that for these scoundrels it only depends on which few states are doing the determining.

 

[Jack V Savage]

And the House of Representatives gave small states disproportionate amounts of power with states, no matter how small, receiving 1 Representative, while more populous states receiving no more than 1 per 30,000. You're a math guy so you know that a state with 30,000 people would have had the same number of representatives as a state with just 5 people. Balancing population size vs voting power.

That didn't give small states disproportionate power. The smallest state had ~60,000 people. So the states had representation in the House roughly equal to their population. It wasn't until 1929 when we capped the size of the House that that really became an issue.

You'll find plenty of writing from them about not letting populous states dominate the will of less populous ones.

Again, that desire was satisfied with the Senate, which was intended to be the less-democratic body. The rest of gov't was designed to be majority rule.

I never said they wanted the person with the most states to win, I said that it is line with what they preferred. They wanted small states to be able to exercise meaningful power over government. All because they understood that the most populous states don't necessary represent the needs/wants of the less populous ones.

They distinctly did not want the President elected by popular vote.

They didn't trust regular people to vote, but they didn't want minority rule. They tried to make it more democratic than the Senate. The idea they had was that voters wouldn't know much about the candidates from other states but they would know a lot about their district's candidates to be electors. So they'd vote for electors who they could trust to make good decisions, and then those electors would narrow the field, and more-democratic body would select from the narrowed field. But (and note your mistake earlier, which is getting echoed here), they didn't expect the hugely disproportionate House that we currently have because House membership was proportional to population before 1929.

 

[blaseblah]

I pointed out that whomever Democrats put out is by definition a bad candidate to Republicans and to the portion of the left that is tricked by propaganda against that candidate. Does that mean that I'm saying that every candidate is flawless? All Fridays are days. Are all days Fridays?

We aren't talking about Republican spin, we are talking about the general perception. Every Democratic nominee can't be great, there have to have been some bad ones. Or is your claim that every Democratic nominee has been good?

And just to point out, all the perceived flaws of Biden didn't originate with Republicans. They came from Democrats. Because they are legitimate things to be concerned about.

 

[bigkick]

Sure because the Democrats represent the popular vote party. They're not going to be happy with a situation where the popular vote doesn't dominate. But the Founding Fathers understood this and designed our system precisely for that outcome.

What happens within the states with gerrymandering is a little different because it affects non-Presidential outcomes and, in those circumstances, the abuse of the popular vote is a bad thing.

What I've read recently (I'll edit this with some sources when I have the time) is that the electoral college was a compromise solution, poorly cobbled together. It wasn't well looked upon at the time and has been a source of problems since. I don't know how long it's going to take to amend, or figure out a work around, but I think that's the direction we're heading and I believe this is a good thing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

It's ironic how those on the right support the EC because they don't want to see a "small handful of states" given the power to determine presidential elections.

While the EC is allowing JUST that - a small handful of states (sometimes literally just 2 or 3) to determine presidential elections.

The reality is that for these scoundrels it only depends on which few states are doing the determining.

The problem is that it's just a really dumb argument that people are trying to kind of backfill to support the status quo. It's like creationists trying to explain vestigial bodyparts. It's not "this is how it was designed and what the reasoning was," it's "this is how it ended up so it must have been intended this way."

 

[James Bomb]

That doesn't make Biden a good candidate. And in the swing States, the ones that determine the election, it's actually the opposite.

People absolutely do seem to think that Biden is a better candidate, since he's leading in almost every swing state

Outside of Russia, this particular attack doesn't seem to be working all that well anymore.

 

[blaseblah]

People absolutely do seem to think that Biden is a better candidate, since he's leading in almost every swing state

Outside of Russia, this particular attack doesn't seem to be working all that well anymore.

I'm talking about Biden as a candidate, outside of any comparison to Trump.

 

[James Bomb]

I'm talking about Biden as a candidate, outside of any comparison to Trump.

Yeah, but Biden is running against Trump, if you didn't notice.