[EL] Presidents who "lost" the popular vote

[BZall at aol.com]

I'm not sure what is "a robust democratic ideal" (Minnitte) in the context  
of a Presidential election.  I would point out that 19 of 45  presidents 
(including Trump) have been elected with less than a majority of the  popular 
vote. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin Of  course, many of them were in the distant 
past, like John Kennedy (49.72%),  Harry S Truman (49.55%), and Bill Clinton 
(43.01%). 
 
Clinton got more votes than Trump (59.9M vs. 59.7M), but she still did not  
get a majority of votes. Roughly 125 million votes were cast (so far); 
Clinton  received 47.92% of all the votes cast. Trump received 47.76% of all 
votes.  Johnson got about 4M, Stein about 1.2M, and others a few more. 
 
And since I have moved from the center of the universe (now popularly known 
 as "the DMV": DC, Maryland, Virginia) to a decidedly-hinterland "other"  
Washington, I particularly appreciate the fact that the "other" states must 
at  least be considered in both electoral and legislative decisions. Even 
though  this state is, like my prior residence in Maryland, true blue and 
unlikely to  get much love in the Trump Administration. 
 
Barnaby  Zall
Law Office of Barnaby Zall
685 Spring St. #314
Friday Harbor WA  98250
360-378-6600
bzall at aol.com  

 
In a message dated 11/10/2016 8:49:15 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
dhmcarver at gmail.com writes:

 
It is impossible to game what NPV or an election campaign with no  
Electoral College would look like, or what the results would be if we directly  
elected our president, for not only would campaigning patterns be different --  
Democrats going to Houston, Republicans holding rallies in Orange County --  
but many people likely don't vote because in their given state their vote  
really won't have an impact on the presidential outcome. (I wish they would  
vote, of course -- democracies without participants soon become empty  
shells.)


I will confess that I am a longstanding opponent of the  Electoral College 
as it is, by design, structured to frustrate the popular  will -- as were 
many of the original elements of the Constitution, including,  of course, the 
appointed Senate and the noxious 3/5ths clause. Perhaps that  was 
understandable in the context in which it was crafted (not least, Shay's  Rebellion 
and the like), but I think it is hard to argue that in the modern  age it is 
defensible at all, particularly as all Federal campaigns (and many  state and 
local campaigns) are transnational. In fact, our elections have  become so 
distorted (not least through gerrymandering, as well as the cap that  has 
been placed on membership) that the supposedly most-representative branch,  
the House, has arguably become the least representative.  


I find it disheartening that in the 21st century, the Electoral College  
has so many defenders. 


(For the record, I also oppose the filibuster, as well as Senate holds  and 
the like, as anti-democratic institutions/mechanisms. Elections have  
consequences, people.)










-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161110/462d51bb/attachment.html>