graphic credit: XaniaTube
THE NARRATIVE
CHANGES TO FIT THE NEEDS OF THE
MOMENT: “I am
already seeing Democrats blaming the Electoral College, which until a few hours
ago was hailed as the great protector of Democratic virtue for decades to come,
and Republicans were silly for not understanding how to crack the blue ‘wall.'”
Dems were praising the Electoral College just before the 2000
election, too, back when they thought Al Gore might win the electoral vote but
lose the popular vote. They turned on a dime when the reverse happened, of
course.
Not
all the votes are tabulated, and not all of them will be, but even if Hillary does
win the popular vote, Trump won by a yuge margin in the Electoral College. I was
interested to find something of a refresher course in a column (“Hillary wins the Popular Vote – Not”) at American Thinker, by Steve Feinstein. Here are some extracts:
Okay, let’s address this
“Hillary might win the popular vote, isn’t that Electoral College situation
just awful” thing head on.
No, it’s not awful. It’s
great, and it protects the importance of your vote. It’s also uniquely
American and demonstrates yet again the once-in-creation brilliance of the
Founding Fathers.
First of all, she’s probably
not going to win the actual number of votes cast. She may win the number
of votes counted, but not the votes cast.
States don’t count their
absentee ballots unless the number of outstanding absentee ballots is larger
than the state margin of difference. If there is a margin of 1,000 votes
counted and there are 1,300 absentee ballots outstanding, then the state
tabulates those. If the number of outstanding absentee ballots wouldn’t
influence the election results, then the absentee ballots aren’t counted. [UPDATE 11/12: this paragraph proves to be incorrect. Absentee ballots ARE counted, but often not until after the Election is called. IOW, the popular vote totals will change.]
. . .
Getting back to the “win the
popular vote/lose the Electoral College” scenario: Thank G-d we have that, or
else California and N.Y. would determine every election. Every time.
. . .
That means that the vast majority of 48 states and their populations will
be subject to the whim and desire of just two states. If those two states
have similar demographics and voting preferences at any particular point in
time (which they do now), then those two states call the shots for the entire
country.
But the Electoral College
brilliantly smooths out the variances in the voting proclivities among states
and regions. Farmers in the middle of the country and importers and
exporters on the shore get roughly equal say, as do Madison Ave. execs and
factory workers in Tennessee.
Shortcomings? Sure.
The E.C. can make an R vote meaningless in a very few heavily D states or
vice versa. But without the Electoral College, the country’s entire
population is subject to the disproportionate voting preferences of the few
most populous states.
The
entire article is here.
# # #
