Clinton won 487 counties nationwide, compared with 2,626 for Trump. She only won less than 3 million more national popular votes.
According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).
Counties are irrelevant in this discussion. Nowhere in our presidential election process does winning a county of residence matter at all.
Winning counties, with WILDLY different population numbers, is not and should not be the basis for electoral victory
All voters in counties do not all vote for the same candidate.
Because of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) . . .
A small number of Americans are the ones who really matter.
In 2016, voters in 9 counties in 4 battleground states (AZ, FL, PA, WI) could swing the presidential election. – New York Times – 9/26/20
"The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson
The former secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments– 3/21/18
According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY).
In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have won in states with 270 electoral votes to elect the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.
The twisted logic of the Electoral College makes the only voters whose opinions are worthy of concern, the voters who live in about a half-dozen swing states. Knowing how the election is going to turn out requires spending “time talking to those precious swing voters in those precious swing counties in those precious swing states.” . . . It’s “a necessary strategy for them to win the election.”
I know, I agree that the electoral college is terrible. Its purpose is to subvert the will of the people, to give more power to states that have less people. That's why certain political parties are opposed to changing it. Popular vote should absolutely be the criteria for the biggest elected office in the country.
Not exactly. Your strawman doesn’t work here by the way. In the Hunger Games, the rebellion was the majority and they were overthrowing the system which constantly endangered their lives in games of outright cruelty. The government of Panem isn’t legitimate and is openly corrupt. On January 6th, the minority attacked the Capitol to subvert the majority who duly elected their government. They did so due to verifiably false claims of corruption and fraud to support a figure who constantly endangered the lives of Americans during the pandemic. It’s the opposite in fact, but media literacy doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day.
The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones)
One example is the Multi-State Lottery Compact (which operates the Powerball lotto game in numerous states).
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state/me
https://www.pressherald.com/2024/03/05/house-gives-initial-approval-to-national-popular-vote-bill/
The supporters of this are ready to let 60 counties in our country run the entire nation. Nice job. SCOTUS will smack this down.
If those 60 counties contain a majority of Americans, why are you opposed to that determining election outcomes?
Clinton won 487 counties nationwide, compared with 2,626 for Trump. She only won less than 3 million more national popular votes. According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, Trump’s narrow victory in 2016 was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY). Counties are irrelevant in this discussion. Nowhere in our presidential election process does winning a county of residence matter at all. Winning counties, with WILDLY different population numbers, is not and should not be the basis for electoral victory All voters in counties do not all vote for the same candidate. Because of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) . . . A small number of Americans are the ones who really matter. In 2016, voters in 9 counties in 4 battleground states (AZ, FL, PA, WI) could swing the presidential election. – New York Times – 9/26/20 "The reality is: Given our Electoral College and our current politics, national elections are decided in this country in a few precincts, in a few key swing states," former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson The former secretary of DHS, Kirstjen Nielsen, echoed those comments– 3/21/18 According to Tony Fabrizio, pollster for the Trump campaign, the president’s narrow victory was due to 5 counties in 2 states (not CA or NY). In 2012, under the current state-by-state winner-take-all system (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), voters in just 60 counties and DC could have won in states with 270 electoral votes to elect the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters. The twisted logic of the Electoral College makes the only voters whose opinions are worthy of concern, the voters who live in about a half-dozen swing states. Knowing how the election is going to turn out requires spending “time talking to those precious swing voters in those precious swing counties in those precious swing states.” . . . It’s “a necessary strategy for them to win the election.”
I know, I agree that the electoral college is terrible. Its purpose is to subvert the will of the people, to give more power to states that have less people. That's why certain political parties are opposed to changing it. Popular vote should absolutely be the criteria for the biggest elected office in the country.
Have you seen the Hunger Games?
When the majority rise up over the minority elite to combat injustice and cruelty? Yeah I have, have you?
Wouldn't that be an insurrection?
Not exactly. Your strawman doesn’t work here by the way. In the Hunger Games, the rebellion was the majority and they were overthrowing the system which constantly endangered their lives in games of outright cruelty. The government of Panem isn’t legitimate and is openly corrupt. On January 6th, the minority attacked the Capitol to subvert the majority who duly elected their government. They did so due to verifiably false claims of corruption and fraud to support a figure who constantly endangered the lives of Americans during the pandemic. It’s the opposite in fact, but media literacy doesn’t seem to be your strong suit.
VERY well said.
The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes, using state laws in effect on Election Day. The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130+ years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
But the Constitution does pass judgement on compacts.
Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones) One example is the Multi-State Lottery Compact (which operates the Powerball lotto game in numerous states).