As I explained last week, Donald Trump was elected to the Presidency despite having fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. She has already set a record for the biggest popular vote victory despite losing the Electoral College; according to CNN, she now (11/17/16 5:00am EST) leads by about 1,045,000 votes, roughly twice the margin of Al Gore's victory over George W. Bush in 2000. This equates to 0.8% of the popular vote.
Moreover, Clinton's lead will only increase in the coming days. The CNN infographic cited above shows that only 78% of California's votes (where Clinton leads by roughly 3 million votes) have so far been counted. Her raw vote margin will continue to climb there until the votes are all counted.
People have raised two primary arguments against my position that having the Electoral Vote trump the popular vote is undemocratic. The first takes the view that Trump won under the rules as they are: If the popular vote were determinative, he would have campaigned more in California, New York, Texas, and other population centers, and, in his mind at least, he would have recorded an even bigger victory. The problem for this claim, as Josh Marshall has pointed out, is that Clinton would have also campaigned more in those states. Increasing voter turnout usually improves Democratic electoral fortunes, so electing the President by popular vote means that Democratic margins would increase, not decrease.
The second argument claims that focusing on the Electoral College as the reason for Clinton's loss lets her off the hook for her weaknesses as a candidate and a campaigner. And there is no doubt that she had her weaknesses. The problem with this view is that the existence of the Electoral College is a necessary condition for her to have lost. None of her campaign's other problems would have led her to lose the election if the Electoral College did not overweight the Wyomings of this country relative to the Californias. This structural disadvantage that populous states face is one of the biggest threats to democracy in America. And we've got to do something about it, soon.
Update: It's now over 1.5 million, according to CNN. California still only has 83% tallied. Some sources have Clinton's lead over 2 million now. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Maybe I am uniformed. I thought that we live in a democratic republic. How is this different than a simple democracy?
ReplyDeleteThe "republic" part means we elect representatives rather than having every individual vote on everything. But the Electoral College is not what makes us a republic; Congress is. France is a republic by virtue of electing a parliament. The goal of "one person, one vote" is that all elections should fairly represent everyone, so that one individual's vote doesn't count more than another's. Both the Senate and the Electoral College violate this, but it is a much easier task to reform the Electoral College than it is the Senate.
ReplyDelete