Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
2020
Trump’s Re-Election Strategy

The President is betting on the Electoral College to carry him back to the White House in 2020, and he just might be right.

Published on: October 18, 2017
Bruce E. Cain is a professor of political science at Stanford University and author of Democracy More or Less (Cambridge University Press, 2015).
show comments
  • Unelected Leader

    Each state is worth as much toward electing the president as they have federal representation to draft bills for that president to potentially sign. It’s perhaps the most fair system in the world, and certainly among of the class of enormous countries. Talking about a national popular vote would mean you’re changing Article 1 and federal representation in a big way.

    That’s fine. You can argue to change the constitution all day long. Just make no mistake that’s what you’re talking about. I suppose then you also want to get rid of the senate and make it unicameral – purely based on population? We would certainly have national referendums, etc. and you don’t even eliminate the situation in which a president gets elected with less than 51% of the popular vote. South Korea just elected a president this spring who was elected with about 40%. Soo yeah.

    • AbleArcher
      • Unelected Leader

        Hahaha. I should’ve taken a pic of mine.

    • SeaAyeA

      Yes The EC is so important, and really it’s one of a few things that makes the Constitution a genius document. Many-a countries [large countries] can tell you how it works out when one or more sections of the country are told what to do 100% of the time by those in the coastal mega cities. It’s not unique to our time. It has historically caused major problems including a lot of death. Of course, the obvious fix of decentralization and disallowing some federal body or emperor or “dear leader” etc the power to tell everyone how to live has rarely been tried.

      • toto

        Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

        Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
        “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
        “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

        Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

        With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

        In the 2016 general election campaign

        Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

        Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

        Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

        Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
        “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

        Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
        “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

        In 2000, 537 popular votes in Florida determined that the candidate who had 537,179 less national popular votes would win.

        Less than 80,000 votes in 3 states determined the 2016 election, where there was a lead of over 2,8oo,ooo popular votes nationwide.

        Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in 1, 2, or 3 states would have elected a 2nd-place candidate in 6 of the 18 presidential elections

      • toto

        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 elected the president in 2012 – even though they represented just 26.3% of voters.

        Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

        With 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), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

        • SeaAyeA

          Yeah this is not a microstate, and America is too large geographically, and in diversity. Having the broadest support is the most important thing. I can go to New York City and Los Angeles and corral millions more people than live in a few Midwestern states. Slow clap. That’s really not that important. Those mid western states are unique states, too, thousands of miles from the coast with their own economies, subcultures and interests.

          Not really sure where you’re headed with the plurality comment. Pretty sure Bill Clinton won’t like it any more than Trump (1992). You have a winner by plurality in all kinds of systems. That includes this one and direct national popular votes, like Korea mentioned above. You need the system which forces the winner to obtain the broadest support across such a vast land.

          • toto

            The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States.

            Voters in the biggest cities in the US are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

            16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation’s Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

            16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.
            The population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

            The rest of the U.S., in suburbs, divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

          • toto

            A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

            The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

            With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

            The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

          • toto

            Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

            Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
            “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
            “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

            Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

            With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

            In the 2016 general election campaign

            Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

            Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

          • toto

            Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

            Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

            Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
            “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

            Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
            “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

            Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

          • toto

            What about Trump in 1992?

            Bill Clinton won the national popular vote. With National Popular Vote in effect, he would have won the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency.

          • SeaAyeA

            Bill Clinton won with 43% of the popular vote in 92. Still kind of unsure what the obsession is with the concept of a national popular vote (not in the Constitution). There’s this thing called the electoral college which apportions a state’s electrical value by adding its representatives per population + 2. Just so you know. Also each state is a unique entity with its own unique laws and issues, so what about it?

          • toto

            In Gallup polls since they started asking in 1944 until this election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states) (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

            Support for a national popular vote for President has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range – in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

            Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

          • toto

            The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

            The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

            Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

            The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
            All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

            In 2016, the Electoral College system effectively silenced 54 million Americans whose votes were not represented in any electoral votes

            The National Popular Vote bill would give a voice to the minority party voters for president in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the presidential candidate they did not vote for. Now they don’t matter to their candidate.

            In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

          • toto

            The founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

            Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
            “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
            The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

            Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation’s first presidential election.

            In 1789, in the nation’s first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

            The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

            The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

            States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

          • SeaAyeA

            Oh yes opinion polls, they always get it right hehe. Were you born yesterday friend? It’s kind of like the polling cited by certain progressives about single payer. It can score very well until it’s met with real rebuttals and then it’s not nearly so popular.

          • Kathy Hix

            In California the electrical value is going solar!

          • toto

            Bill Clinton won the national popular vote. With National Popular Vote in effect, he would have won the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency.

            The words “Electoral College” are not in the Constitution.

            With the National Popular Vote bill there is STILL this thing called the electoral college which apportions a state’s electrical value by adding its representatives per population + 2.

            The Founding Fathers left the choice of method of awarding electoral votes exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
            “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
            The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

            States enacting the National Popular Vote bill are choosing to award their electors to the winner of the most popular votes in the country.

    • Gary Hemminger

      Exactly right Unelected Leader. The democrats want a system that benefits them. The minute it doesn’t they will want it changed back. they are ideological hacks who do not belong in power with their current ideology. Have no doubt that the Republicans are stupid as well. But the democrats are dangerous, whereas the Republicans are just stupid. And the democrats keep saying the republicans are the dangerous ones, but it is they are a danger to society.

      At least the Republicans can’t get anything done. The democrats go lock step every time with their communist thinking. they are dangerous and must be kept out of power. Trust me as a Californian all of my life you can see their stupid policies and religious environmentalism dominate their wierd thinking. If they could they would take away our cars, control our thermostats, force us all into apartments, and force feed us green power. These progressives are complete whacko’s.

      • toto

        Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

        Trump, October 11, 2017, on interview with Sean Hannity
        “I would rather have the popular vote.”

        Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
        “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

        In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
        “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

        In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

        Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),

        Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

        Since 2006, the National Popular Vote bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

    • toto

      Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
      The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

      The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

      The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

      Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

      The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
      All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

      • Unelected Leader

        Yeah it’s quite an obvious wink and a nod to those who want to upend perhaps the fairest possible form of presidential election in any massive and major country. Total dishonesty. Although, I have run into a few honest folks. Their proposal has uniformly been to either hold a convention and rewrite the Constitution almost completely (as they want more than the changing of the presidential election process), OR those that want each state to be genuinely even and equal. Upon further inquiry I found that they would like to actually get rid of the house of representatives and have a unicameral legislature with the Senate in which every state is equal. Of course, the irony is that would mean we have 100 senators, 100 electoral votes, and Trump still would’ve won of course. He had the broadest support.

        • Suzy Dixon

          Yeah I’ve had the same experiences. I’ve talk to some of these people in person and online, and it’s like looking into a smoke-filled room. Almost nothing is well-defined. I suppose that’s because they don’t, themselves, know what they want, and it really just boils down to them not being happy with the result. That is the fundamental issue. Were they concerned with leading the charge against the electoral college one year ago from today? And the answer for the vast majority would be no.

          • Unelected Leader

            That’s an excellent point, Suzy. Whenever someone is advancing some kind of argument or a prescription, the very first thing you need to do is critique how meticulously they have outlined their case, used well defined terms, and so on. If they have not done those things, well, then you can just move on because they clearly don’t care about the issue very much in the first place. At best they are still very much confused about what it is they want and they need more time to refine it in their own head and amongst themselves before they can actually advance the cause.

        • toto

          In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

          Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

          The bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).

          In 2016 the Arizona House of Representatives passed the bill 40-16-4.
          Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives sponsored the bill.
          In January 2016, two-thirds of the Arizona Senate sponsored the bill.

          In 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.

          The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

          Supporters of the National Popular Vote bill include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

          Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the National Popular Vote plan would not help either party over the other.

          The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.

          Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

          Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:”A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College.”

          Laura Brod who served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

          James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

          Ray Haynes who served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

          Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

          Thomas L. Pearce who served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

          • Unelected Leader

            Yep. That’s why you need to bring it up to these people. They don’t really understand what they’re asking for. It’s always hilarious to ask them which one of the houses they’re looking to abolish. It usually just zips right past them but that’s exactly what they’re talking about, and they didn’t even know it. I highly doubt California is going to want to get rid of the House of Representatives. At 12% of the US population it’s worth 55 electoral votes with its huge 53 reps (20% of the way to 270 i.e. electing the president). I’m pretty certain they’re not going to give that up lol. In fact, moving up the California primary means they’re looking to play an even more prominent role in the current arrangement.

            And a lot of people where I live in the Rust Belt don’t complain about the fact that 12% of the population decide where 55 electoral votes go. We know that it doesn’t matter if they win California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Illinois…. luckily it doesn’t take just those few states, and, for now, the rest of us have a powerful cumulative voice. Course this is amplified by the nature of federal representation, judicial checks and balances, etc.

          • toto

            None of them are looking to abolish any House.
            That’s not at all what they’re talking about.
            That’s not at all what would happen.
            The bill has nothing to do with the House.

            The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

            The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

            Every voter, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter equally in the state counts and national count.

            The bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
            All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes among all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.

            Trump received more votes in California than he got in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and West Virginia combined.
            None of the voters or votes in California for Trump, helped Trump.

            California Democratic votes in 2016 were 6.4% of the total national popular vote.

            The vote difference in California wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 61.5 million votes she received in other states.

            California cast 10.3% of the total national popular vote.
            31.9% Trump, 62.3% Clinton

            In 2012, California cast 10.2% of the national popular vote.
            About 62% Democratic

            California has 10.2% of Electoral College votes.

            8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

            With the National Popular Vote bill in effect, all votes for all candidates in California will matter.

            Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

            With 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), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

            But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

            With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter.

            In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
            * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
            * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
            * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
            * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
            * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
            * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
            * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

            To put these numbers in perspective,
            Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
            Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
            8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

          • Unelected Leader

            Lol wth kind of deal is that? Thats hilarious! And they most definitely want to abolish one of the Houses, and they just don’t know recognize that because they don’t know what they’re talking about. All stems from their greed and childishness.

          • toto

            All of these didn’t and don’t know what they were talking about?

            338 members of the 1969 U.S. House of Representatives, including Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole
            Newt Gingrich
            A unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in 2016 in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
            40 members of the 2016 Arizona House of Representatives
            Two-thirds of the Republicans and two-thirds of the Democrats in the Arizona House of Representatives
            Two-thirds of the Arizona Senate.
            28 members of the 2014 Oklahoma Senate passed the bill by a 28–18 margin.
            Former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah), former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)
            Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years
            The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson.
            Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State
            Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina,
            Laura Brod who served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.
            James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.
            Ray Haynes who served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002
            Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.
            Thomas L. Pearce who served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

          • Unelected Leader

            Nope. They don’t know. Well they may know, and they’re just dishonest. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. The reality is, the “national popular vote” is not in the constitution, neither are national referendums, or the like. Talking about going through the motions of a state-by-state vote and then simply side stepping the interests of each state and giving the electoral votes to the national popular vote winner is laughable, and bizarre.

            I’ve got good reasons why it’s not the case today and why it shouldn’t be. A guy sitting in the Rust Belt, like me, generally has quite different interests and certainly a different economy than a guy sitting in Cal or Florida for that matter. That’s to say nothing of potentially monumental values differences. Just the economics will do.

          • toto

            The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state’s electoral votes.

            Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes.
            2 award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district, and two electoral votes statewide.
            Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

            Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
            “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
            The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

            The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1830s, when most of the Founders had been dead for decades, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

            States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

            Federal law (Title 3, chapter 1, section 6 of the United States Code) requires the states to report the November popular vote numbers (the “canvas”) in what is called a “Certificate of Ascertainment.” They list the electors and the number of popular votes cast for each. The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes reported in the Certificates of Ascertainment. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all 50 states and the District of Columbia containing the official count of the popular vote at the NARA web site.

            The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states, to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States.

            The bill retains the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections, and uses the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

            The “national” popular vote is simply the total of the popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

            “The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
            – Vikram David Amar – professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

          • Unelected Leader

            Yeah they could do it the way your outlining. They wont. Makes no sense. Sounds more like severe OCD to holdover the old way only to sidestep it at the end. Basically, you’re telling me that you either don’t care about the unique interests of different regions of the US (really even state by state), or that you understand those differences and you simply don’t care. I just fundamentally disagree. My home state is Iowa, too, and I know voters who pulled for Obama and then voted Trump. Purely economics..well or at least 99% econ.

          • toto

            Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

            Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in 2015 was correct when he said
            “The nation as a whole is not going to elect the next president,”
            “The presidential election will not be decided by all states, but rather just 12 of them.

            Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

            With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of 70% of all Americans was finished for the presidential election.

            In the 2016 general election campaign

            Over half (57%) of the campaign events were held in just 4 states (Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio).

            Virtually all (94%) of the campaign events were in just 12 states (containing only 30% of the country’s population).

            Issues of importance to 38 non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

            Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
            “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [the then] 18 battleground states.”

            Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
            “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

            Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

          • toto

            A successful nationwide presidential campaign of polling, organizing, ad spending, and visits, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

            The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states, including polling, organizing, and ad spending) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

            With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren’t so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

            The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural area. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

          • toto

            The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
            Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), The District of Columbia, Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), Oklahoma (7), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California, Colorado (9), Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico (5), New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
            The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

          • Unelected Leader

            Lol. good luck with that. Your OCD on the topic is clear, and severe. Got this off Wikipedia. Seems about right lol. Of course the whole thing is antithetical to common sense. Why would my state even need representatives then. I guess we don’t. I guess we can just jump off a cliff right? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4d2f0a27692449c920d332d2f77fb1d14e3e9df2f45d95c2fe0ce0c09124eee5.png

          • toto

            A state’s representatives would not change.

            The National Popular Vote bill only would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), in the enacting states.

            Common sense is an election where every voter matters equally, and the candidate with the most votes wins.

            Most Americans don’t ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don’t allow this in any other election in our representative repub

          • seattleoutcast

            Since the state senates are now eunuchs thanks to the Supreme Court, I am not surprised that a popular vote would be advocated by the state legislatures–all which are dominated by large cities.

            In fact, the loss of representation of rural counties in the states is a perfect example of why we should refrain from a popular vote.

          • John Schwartz

            You obviously don’t care about the unique interests of the millions of Americans who live in the noncompetitive states. Shouldn’t Republicans in California have their voices heard? And why should it take 480,000 Texans to equal 167,000 people from DC? The National Popular Vote is a good idea. It has nothing to do with abolishing the Senate or any of the other nonsense you’ve been going on about. Let’s not attack reasonable ideas purely out of cynical partisanship.

          • Unelected Leader

            It has everything to do with it, big guy. They are represented by their representatives. All 13 of them, or whatever small number it is out of 53 total from California. The very same representatives from California who fight with representatives from my state, or other states, which is exactly why it’s done on a state-by-state basis. We don’t agree on a lot of things, and we have very different interests in some areas. Sorry if this is news for you. Cheers.

          • John Schwartz

            The House is not the Presidential election. Republicans have representatives from California, but essentially no voice in the Presidential election. You understand that these are two seperate branches of government, right?

            And what in God’s name was this sentence supposed to mean?

            “The very same representatives from California who fight with representatives from my state, or other states, which is exactly why it’s done on a state-by-state basis.”

            That’s just some insane gibberish. Of course, since there’s no rational basis for your arguments, devolving into insane gibberish is pretty much your only rhetorical option.

          • Unelected Leader

            Yep! I’m glad I could share the good news with you though, since you didn’t think they had any representation. But, ultimately, they live in California and California conservatives are not conservatives in Iowa or Texas or North Carolina. Neither are California Dems the same as those elsewhere – clearly. You’re talking about unique states with their own laws, economies, challenges, advantages, and so on. That’s why it’s done on the state-by-state basis for the 12,000th time:) are you starting to get the picture? I really don’t know how to dumb it down anymore than this.

          • CheckYourself

            I agree, seems the only other viable alternative would be to eliminate the senators from the equation and base electoral votes simply off of districts. Reduce it from state to state into district to district. One district, one electoral vote. Count it as a district by district race for each vote rather than state by state. I don’t know what the exact number is, but I know it’s, what, around 750,000 people per district? Save Wyoming because they simply don’t have that many so their district is a little smaller. So that would have to be it. It preserves the ability to address unique state concerns as well. That would be the alternative if one is looking for fairness. Not everyone is though.

          • Unelected Leader

            Your proposal is certainly more sensible than what’s being proposed here and elsewhere. However, I am very strongly against it. The reason why is the same as I’ve outlined above ad nauseum. States are unique legal entities and we have federalism in this country. You may have a district that is next to another district, but within the same city. States have their own prerogatives make laws on a number of issues including education, taxes, guns, marijuana, and things like permits and zoning can even come down to a local level. The economies of states are all unique, but of course they are grouped somewhat by region.

          • KremlinKryptonite

            Very well put UL. Your last post is where you really tied it together. Very compelling. As you know, I live in Korea and your quip about the election here is spot on lol. Though I’ve been here for years, I simply can’t get over hearing little old ladies using some profanity, and I’ve been hearing it ever since moon’s weak victory. Of course they’re more angry at Ahn who split the conservative vote.

          • John Schwartz

            I never said they didn’t have “any representation.” My first sentence referred to noncompetitive states. I was clearly referring to California Republicans not having a voice in Presidential elections. But if poor reading comprehension makes you feel good about yourself, go on ahead.

            Getting to the point. States aren’t monolithic. California is a massive and complex economy, with many groups within it. There are farmers, construction workers, high tech wiz-kids, Hollywood moguls. They all have different interests. Living in California doesn’t make them into a hive mind. The same is true of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida, Maryland, any state you pick. Everybody in every state is a unique individual. Every one of those people should be able to speak with an equal voice in the Presidential election. The current system, of awarding 100% of the electoral college votes to the plurality winner, does not deliver that. Frankly, it’s really stupid.

            Would you oppose states awarding their electoral college votes on a proportional basis? So if the Democrats win Virginia with 51%, they’d get 7 out of 13 votes, while Republicans scoring 65% of Oklahoma would get 5 out of 7 votes. There’s nothing in the Constitution that argues against proportional votes. Would it bother you?

    • toto

      Equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate is explicitly established in the U.S. Constitution. This feature cannot be changed by state law or an interstate compact.

      In fact, equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate may not even be amended by an ordinary federal constitutional amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides:
      “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

      Thus, this feature of the U.S. Constitution may only be changed by a constitutional amendment approved by unanimous consent of all 50 states.

      In contrast, the U.S. Constitution explicitly assigns the power of selecting the manner of appointing presidential electors to the states. The enactment by a state legislature of the National Popular Vote bill is an exercise of a legislature’s existing powers under the U.S. Constitution.

      In short, enactment of the National Popular Vote compact, which would not abolish the Electoral College, has no bearing on the federal constitutional provisions establishing equal representation of the states in the U.S. Senate.

    • toto

      With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state’s or district’s electoral votes.

      Since 1828, one in six states have cast their Electoral College votes for a candidate who failed to win the support of 50 percent of voters in their state

      Few legislative bills have been introduced in state legislatures in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation’s 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any widespread public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

      In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

      Since 1824 there have been 17 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.– including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), Clinton (1992 and 1996), and Trump.

      Americans, generally, do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

    • toto

      The National Popular Vote bill changes nothing in the U.S. Constitution.

      States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now 38 states and their voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

      Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution– “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . .” The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as “plenary” and “exclusive.”

      Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

    • Angel Martin
    • William

      Why make the government so complicated.
      Do away with the undemocratic courts, why do we need a legislature? If democracy is the goal, then a national popular election of a single leader who embodies and concentrates all state power with that leader, is as a pure a democracy as is possible with a nation the size of USA.
      Of course, democracy is not the guiding principle of USA; the citizen’s liberty, freedom from state control is the goal. If the founding fathers felt an absolute monarchy was best suited to ensure the citizen’s liberty and freedom from state control, then the USA’s government would be an absolute monarchy. In actuality the founding fathers felt a Republic representing local, state, and national interests, with review by autonomous courts was the best system to ensure the citizens’ and their liberty and freedom. The Electoral College is a brilliant design for selecting a national leader.

  • FriendlyGoat

    President Trump will be re-elected if America’s church people decide they have enjoyed his first four years. The whole road to his first election was “evangelicals gone wild” and there is nothing else which could possibly produce his second election.

    Twelve months in, though, is a poor time to speculate as to what forty-eight months of Trumpism might look like.

    • Gary Hemminger

      the people that voted Trump in were the ones that voted for Obama twice. And the reason they voted for Trump is that Hillary and Obama kept saying the same things you are saying. Putting religious people down. I am not religious, but it is people like you that are giving us Trump. Progressive whacko’s that want to end the use of fossil fuels, let people pick whatever gender they want, saying that global warming is going to kill us all, giving us open border/sanctuary cities, and on and on. Just keep saying these things FriendlyGoat and you will give us more Trump.

      I do not like Trump, but it is people that think like you that are more dangerous, because you give us Trumps. by putting down religious people and calling people that don’t agree with you bigots, the progressives are the ones that enable Trump. It isn’t the Republicans, it is the progressives that are the danger to our society.

      • FriendlyGoat

        I spent a great deal of my life admiring religious people, back before a majority of the most fervent ones became brainwashed. I am speaking of the 81% of evangelicals (self-described born again, variety of denominations and independent mega-churches) who voted for Trump and who are his most ardent supporters.

        You are entitled to your “logic” that people who do not support Trumpism somehow goad or trick others into electing it, I guess, but don’t ask me to believe it. Trump cannot be elected a second time if he loses those evangelicals. He has no plans to do so—–and he seriously could not care less about trying to hold a former Obama voter. Every action and every message from The White House is confirming this on a daily basis. His second-time fate is completely depended on whether church goes more nuts or wakes up a little to the fact they elected a mistake. I don’t know the answer, and the main reason I don’t know is that events of the next three years are not yet unfolded.

        • Psalms13626

          81%??? DRINK!!!!!!!

        • Joe Eagar

          Hilary would have (been forced to) actively attacked the civil rights of white Christians. Trump will not. How is this a bad deal?

  • Kristian Holvoet

    All of this highlights what we have known for some time: the Electoral College is a serious problem for American democracy.

    Hardly. Two words: Nationwide Recount.

    In addition, coastal urban domination (~8% of land area) determining all policies for country (hey, didja see the ‘Hunger Games’? That’d be a BEST case scenario, especially after NY, NJ, CA, IL, et al. try to impose Gun Control on the interior)

    Third, Constitutional Amendment where inland states would have to slit their own throats politically speaking.

    Another alternative, the “National Popular Vote,” solves this problem via a compact in which states pledge to give all their electors to the winner of the popular vote. It only works if enough states join in—their combined votes must number 270 in total. States that participate are forbidden to back out after a certain deadline during election season, though we should never underestimate the willingness of political actors to game the system when the stakes are high. Still, the NPV is the best option on the table.

    And, how, exactly would the ‘forbidden to back out after a certain deadline during’ work? Say this interstate compact (already some Constitutional issues, there Article I, Section 10 : “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress… enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State.”) is in effect, and after the Election, OH decides, ‘Hell, no, that person is a total nut’ and chooses to direct it’s Electoral Votes to the state popular vote winner. Given the 12th Amendment, that begins

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

    Who would have standing? CA? A citizen of OH? A citizen of DC? Where would the constitutional authority and remedy arise? Who would enforce it?

    • toto

      No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 58 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

      The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
      “It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

      The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

      Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

      The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

      The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

      We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

      Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

      The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

      The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a “final determination” prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their “final determination” six days before the Electoral College meets.

    • toto

      Now, a presidential candidate could lose despite winning 78%+ of the popular vote and 39 states.

      With 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), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with less than 22% of the nation’s votes!

      But the political reality is that the 11 largest states, with a majority of the U.S. population and electoral votes, rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included 7 states have voted Republican(Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia) and 4 states have voted Democratic (California, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

      With National Popular Vote, it’s not the size of any given state, it’s the size of their “margin” that will matter.

      In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
      * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
      * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
      * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
      * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
      * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
      * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
      * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

      To put these numbers in perspective,
      Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes).
      Utah (5 electoral votes) generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004.
      8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

    • toto

      Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

      The U.S. Constitution provides:
      “No state shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another state….”

      Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:
      “Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

      “The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”

      Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:
      “Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

      The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:
      “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

      In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:
      “The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”

      The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power — much less federal supremacy — in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.

      In the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the compact at issue specified that it would come into force when seven or more states enacted it. The compact was silent as to the role of Congress. The compact was submitted to Congress for its consent. After encountering fierce political opposition from various business interests concerned about the more stringent tax audits anticipated under the compact, the compacting states proceeded with the implementation of the compact without congressional consent. U.S. Steel challenged the states’ action. In upholding the constitutionality of the implementation of the compact by the states without congressional consent, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the interpretation of the Compacts Clause from its 1893 holding in Virginia v. Tennessee, writing that:
      “the test is whether the Compact enhances state power quaod [with regard to] the National Government.”

      The Court also noted that the compact did not
      “authorize the member states to exercise any powers they could not exercise in its absence.”

    • John Schwartz

      Why do you think land area is relevant? People vote, dirt doesn’t.

      Shouldn’t every person have an equal voice in determining the Presidency? Why should an individual voter in DC or Vermont count more than somebody in Virginia or Arizona?

      Maybe if you weren’t such a vicious partisan hack, you’d think about what’s best for the American people instead of your own narrow segment.

      Also, try to distinguish fantasy from reality. The Hunger Games is a rip off of Koshun Takami’s Battle Royale. It isn’t serious political commentary.

      • seattleoutcast

        That is exactly what was said regarding state senates by the Supreme Court. Now the rural areas of states have no representation.

        • John Schwartz

          What rural area, in what state, has no representation?

          • seattleoutcast

            You’re kidding, right? Here in Washington, Seattle dominates everything. Even the supreme court is packed with Seattle liberals. Other states have the same problem. Urban elites don’t understand this.

          • Tom

            No, no, they do understand it. That’s a feature to them, not a bug.

          • seattleoutcast

            So true!

          • John Schwartz

            Seattle does have a big role in Washington politics. It should. The Seattle metro area has about half of the state’s population and economic activity. In a well designed system, Seattle should have about half of the political power.

            Would a better system just ignore half of the people? Why would that be better?

            Furthermore, you’re flat lying when you claim that the rural areas have no representation. King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties have by my count 26 out of 49 state senate seats. Nor are they monolithic. 9 of the 26 are Republicans, and Republicans (with the help of one Democrat, Tim Sheldon) control the state senate. The rural areas are represented in proportion to their populations. You’re making a false claim that is completely unsupported by the evidence. Rural Washington residents enjoy equal representation in the state legislature.

          • seattleoutcast

            Nope, you are flat out lying. Tell me about the water rights that rural people are no longer allowed to have. Tell me about the income tax that Seattle is pushing that is against the state constitution. By the way, King, Pierce and Snohomish counties are Seattle. Nice little fudge there.

            You say that I am ignoring half the population. Well, you are ignoring the other half. Do the rural areas matter? I guess not. They’re just toothless rubes/hillbillies that make no difference. They’re not sophisticated, urbane liberals like Seattle.

            Have you seen the interior of California have any say in the past 20 years?

          • John Schwartz

            About two-thirds of Washington’s population lives in the Puget Sound area. The fact is, individual rural Washington voters have just as much of a voice in the legislature as individual urban voters. Every individual has an equal voice. When you’re outnumbered you need to split the rival faction and build a bigger coalition. If you can’t do that, you lose, and that’s politics.

            When you say, “Now the rural areas of states have no representation,” you are saying something which is not true. It’s not a fact. It’s not even an alternative fact. It is a lie. And you shouldn’t lie. Just because you’re outvoted doesn’t mean you have no representation. It means you lost. Instead of crying about it and fabricating fantasies you should get better and become a winner.

  • Gary Hemminger

    I completely disagree with this statement…

    the Electoral College is a serious problem for American democracy.

    This is Trump Derangement Syndrome at its worst. The founders put in the electoral college so that states like CA and NY do not dominate the political scene. This is still an important reason for having the electoral college. The democrats can get around this by crafting policies that appeal to the swing states. If they insist on developing policies that are not popular in these states, lose them, and then claim “the Electoral College is a serious problem for American democracy,” then they are idiots who do not belong in power. Political parties are about taking power, not promoting their own ideology. If they want to promote their ideology over taking power that is their problem, not a Electoral college problem.

    It is about time the Democrats stopped crying over spilt milk, because the Electoral college system is not going to change. Stop whinning and start crafting policies that might actually get people in Penn, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin to vote for you. And here is a recommendation for what you might want to do to actually win these states:

    1) Stop saying that global warming is our #1 security problem and we need to kill blue collar fossil fuel jobs
    2) Stop saying that anyone can choose any gender they want
    3) Stop saying that anyone that doesn’t agree with your policy prescriptions is a rube, bigot, xenophobe, homophobic idiot
    4) Stop suppressing any speech you don’t agree with as hate speech
    5) Stop promoting socialized everything and condemning capitalism as evil in every case
    6) Stop promoting open borders and sanctuary cities (yes building walls and deporting all illegals is not a good strategy either)

    That would be a start, but I am guessing the Democrats can’t do this. The Democrats have to own up for their part in creating Trump. And have no doubt, they are a big part of why we got the Trump. Just like Republicans and Bush created the Obama. I did not like Obama’s policies at all. Weak, terrible, and went around Congress every time. I see Trump in exactly the same light. Weak, terrible and goes around Congress.

    • toto

      In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

      California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population

      Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

      In total New York state and California cast 16% of the total national popular vote

      In total, Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
      Trump won those states.

      The vote margin in California and New York wouldn’t have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

      In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

      New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
      About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

      New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

      Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.

    • toto

      Democratic presidential candidates have won
      6 of 7 most recent elections in PA
      4 of 7 in OH
      6 of 7 in MI
      6 of 7 in WI

      From 1992- 2016
      13 states (with 102 electoral votes) voted Republican every time
      16 states (with 195) voted Democratic every time

      Many states have not been competitive for more than a half-century and most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position.
      • 38 States Won by Same Party, 2000-2016
      • 29 States Won by Same Party, 1992-2016
      • 13 States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012
      • 19 States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012
      • 7 Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988
      • 16 GOP States Not Swing State since 1988

    • toto

      Newt Gingrich summarized his support for the National Popular Vote bill by saying: “No one should become president of the United States without speaking to the needs and hopes of Americans in all 50 states. … America would be better served with a presidential election process that treated citizens across the country equally. The National Popular Vote bill accomplishes this in a manner consistent with the Constitution and with our fundamental democratic principles.”

      Trump, October 11, 2017, on interview with Sean Hannity
      “I would rather have the popular vote.”

      Trump, November 13, 2016, on “60 Minutes”
      “ I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play.”

      In 2012, the night Romney lost, Trump tweeted.
      “The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. . . . The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.”

      In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin.

      Recent and past presidential candidates who supported direct election of the President in the form of a constitutional amendment, before the National Popular Vote bill was introduced: George H.W. Bush (R-TX-1969), Bob Dole (R-KS-1969), Gerald Ford (R-MI-1969), Richard Nixon (R-CA-1969),

      Recent and past presidential candidates with a public record of support, before November 2016, for the National Popular Vote bill that would guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate with the most national popular votes: Bob Barr (Libertarian- GA), U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN),

      The National Popular Vote bill was approved in 2016 by a unanimous bipartisan House committee vote in both Georgia (16 electoral votes) and Missouri (10).
      Since 2006, the bill has passed 35 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9) and New Mexico (5).

  • toto

    The National Popular Vote bill states: “Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term.”

    This six-month “blackout” period includes six important events relating to presidential elections, namely the
    ● national nominating conventions,
    ● fall general election campaign period,
    ● Election Day on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
    ● meeting of the Electoral College on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December,
    ● counting of the electoral votes by Congress on January 6, and
    ● scheduled inauguration of the President and Vice President for the new term on January 20.

    Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

    The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

    There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts.

    In 1976, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stated in Hellmuth and Associates v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority:

    “When enacted, a compact constitutes not only law, but a contract which may not be amended, modified, or otherwise altered without the consent of all parties.”

    In 1999, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated in Aveline v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole:
    “A compact takes precedence over the subsequent statutes of signatory states and, as such, a state may not unilaterally nullify, revoke, or amend one of its compacts if the compact does not so provide.”

    In 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court very succinctly addressed the issue in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission:
    “A compact is, after all, a contract.”

    The important point is that an interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

    Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.

  • D4x

    …Q One quick follow-up on Iraq, sir. On
    Iraq, the Kurdish forces and Iraqi forces last night were clashing in northern
    Iraq. Are you concerned about a larger conflict in the region while U.S. forces
    are still advising on the ground?

    THE PRESIDENT: We don’t like the fact that they’re
    clashing. We’re not taking sides, but we don’t like the fact that they’re
    clashing.

    Q Do you support the Kurdish referendum for independence?

    THE PRESIDENT: Let me tell you, we’ve had for many years a
    very good relationship with the Kurds, as you know. And we’ve also been on the
    side of Iraq, even though we should have never been in there in the first
    place. We should never have been there. But we’re not taking sides in that
    battle. …

  • Joe Eagar

    Actually, I think it’s far more likely we’ll become Yugoslavia than South Africa. Apartheid is always easier when the other side are of a different race and are all poor. That isn’t the case here. Our hatreds are more akin to Christian vs Jewish Germans at the beginning of the 20th century. “Similar but not quite” is always more ethnically explosive than “just alien”.

  • Joe Eagar

    Also, I find it amusing that academics have apparently internalized the whole “reverse colonization” thing.

  • Diws

    So I take it that the author prefers the disproportionate heft of deep blue urban areas in deciding the presidential elections over the disproportionate influence of the swing states. So NYC, coastal California, Cook county, etc are woefully underrepresented here. It seems to me that deep blue urban America has more than enough power without giving it a lock on the presidency in perpetuity.

  • WalrusandtheCarpenter

    Where is WRM?

    • Mark1971

      Very disappointed that the blog is dead. It was one of my daily reads and probably the best single roundup of international news. No reason to come here now.

  • I’m not in favor of eliminating the electoral college, but I’d modify it this way (which would require a constitutional amendment): The 10 largest states would get three senators, and hence one additional electoral vote. The 10 smallest states would only get one senator, and hence only 2 or 3 electoral votes. Everybody else would keep their two senators.

    Under this plan Wyoming would be (approximately) only 26x more represented in the electoral college than California, as against 45x today.

    Not sure it would’ve made any difference in the 2016 outcome since there was no systematic difference in the way large and small states voted.

    The Constitution exists to protect minorities, which includes the populations of small states. That was a worthy goal at our founding, and remains so today.

  • D4x

    The energy expended on any National Popular Vote initiative would be better deployed on reform of ballot access for third parties, mandatory civics education, and more states following the Congressional District Method that Maine and Nebraska use. Voter participation would go up if more states used mail-in ballot-only as Oregon does, in a secure and UNhackable manner: July 28, 2017:
    https://www.thenation.com/article/how-oregon-increased-voter-turnout-more-than-any-other-state/

    Name recognition already distorts the fundraising and duopoly nominating process for POTUS. Deference to any iteration of National Popular Vote, without reform of party nominating process, would lead to Oprah v Selleck, but better nationally broadcast campaign commercials. If you think ‘political experience’ is relevant, there are still Clintons and Bushes, bored with watching the re-tread tv series, “Dynasty”.

  • Gern Blandersong

    The author neglects to point out that Bill Clinton one 1992 with 43% and 1996 with 49% of popular vote. The electoral strategy worked to give Clinton the Presidency in both cases too.

  • Jeff77450

    Mr. Cain, you and others are unhappy with the EC and its impact on the elections of 2000 & 2016. Myself and others are increasingly unhappy with the changing demographics of America and its impact on our culture and the fact that these new groups mostly vote for the Left and by extension the forced redistribution of wealth. And we’re very unhappy that we were given essentially no say in approving changes to immigration policy. In theory we had a say through our elected representatives but in practice not so much.

    At the conclusion of the war with Mexico in 1848 there were, according to one source, ~100,000 Mexicans in Texas and the Mexican Cession. It seems obvious to me that most, let alone all, of the ~50,000,000 Latinos in America today are *not* descended from those original 100,000. There has been, of course, a certain amount of legal immigration from Latin America but I’m guessing that ~30,000,000 Latinos in America are a result of illegal immigration. The fact that both parties were in collusion on this blatant crime & injustice–democrats for votes and republicans for cheap labor–meant that We the People had effectively no say in the matter.

    Something like 65% of Latinos vote democrat which means that they’re voting for amnesty for illegals, the forced redistribution of wealth and moving blacks & Latinos to the head of the line over better qualified whites & Asians re. college admissions and some jobs. Can you see why we’re upset? By the way, it’s an urban myth that illegals do the jobs that Americans won’t do.

    My wife’s ex-husband graduated from high school in 1982 and promptly went into commercial construction. His parents tried to convince him to go to college but his response was that the starting-pay in construction was so good why bother? What he didn’t know was that about the same time that he was entering commercial construction so were the illegal aliens. At first he tried to help them because he say how they were being taken advantage of, but within a few years he had come to despise them because he saw how they were holding down wages. My wife believes that his subsequent substance-abuse problems largely stemmed from his impaired ability to provide for his family. With all my heart & soul I believe that families like this are morally, if not legally, justified in “tarring-and feathering” everyone involved with throwing them under the proverbial bus re. illegal immigration. Some day there will be a reckoning. I hope to live to see that day.

    We’re also increasingly upset about the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. As I’m sure you know we were told that it wouldn’t change the demographics of America. Well that was a blatant lie. On any given day most people are just trying to survive and get through the day. In 1965 communications were much more limited than today. My point being that most Americans in 1965 were largely unaware of the pending legislation and as with Europeans and “Schengen” didn’t understand the implications.

    The EC helps to level the playing field in a way completely unanticipated by the Founders and I hope that it doesn’t change for as long as it acts as a check on the blatantly destructive goals of the Left. As an aside, I didn’t vote for DJT or HRC believing, as I did, that they were both morally & ethically unfit to serve as president. I wrote-in Evan McMullen. But I’ve been gleefully & thoroughly enjoying watching God-cursed Leftists’ heads explode as much as anyone who did vote for DJT.

    Societies that are homogenous tend to be harmonious. Examples include Japan, Korea, Poland, Hungary and until very recently the Scandinavian countries. Societies that are heterogeneous tend to be chaotic. Examples include Rwanda and the Balkans in the 1990s, Darfur in the 2000s and much of the Middle East and parts of Africa today. A society can have some well-behaved minority groups but there needs to be one homogenous group that is at least 90% of the population to keep things stable. I know that the Left is collectively gleeful at the prospect of whites becoming <50% of the U.S. population but I predict that this is *not* going to end well. I would add that how the Left can believe that the group that created Western Civilization and the modern world becoming <50% of the population of any western nation is a desirable goal is just beyond me. You would have to be completely ignorant of history and human nature in general—and dare I say suicidal.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.