TRUMP AHEAD AND GAINING SUPPORT

3 Comments / 3 Comments

1. I think abolishing the electoral college would be a bad idea.

   I googled it. It’s only happened four times. The last was George W. Bush. The first, it went to the House of Representatives. The eventual winner failed to win either the popular vote or the electoral vote.
   http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/:

   I would argue that with one popular vote throughout the country, minority groups, such as Jews who constitute a majority in certain districts, would lose that influence, being merely 6 million out of 350.

   In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argues for the electoral college as a means of avoiding corrupt and unfit individuals becoming elected on a wave of popularity (remember, he had the examples of France and Haiti before him):

   Federalist 68 outlined[edit]
   Hamilton’s understanding of the Electoral College[edit]
   Federalist No. 68 is the continuation of Hamilton’s analysis of the presidency, in this case concerned with the mode of selecting the United States President. He argues for our modern conception of the Electoral College, though in the case of a tie, the power would be given to the House of Representatives to vote on the election of the president.

   In justifying the use of the Electoral College, Hamilton focuses on a few arguments dealing with why the college is used, as opposed to direct election. First, in explaining the role of the general populace in the election of the president, Hamilton argues that the “sense of the people”, through the election of the electors to the college, should have a part of the process. The final say, however, lies with the electors, who Hamilton notes are

   “Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

   Therefore, the direct election of the president is left up to those who have been selected by the voters to become the electors. The indirect election is justified by Hamilton because while a republic is still served, the system allows for only a certain type of person to be elected president, preventing individuals who are unfit for a variety of reasons to be in the position of chief executive of the country.

   This is reflected in his later fears about the types of people who could potentially become president. He worries that corrupted individuals could potentially be elected president, particularly those who are either more directly associated with a foreign state, or individuals who do not have the capacity to run the country. The former is covered by Article II, Section 1, v of the United States Constitution, while the latter is covered by Hamilton in Federalist 68, noting that the person who will become president will have to be a person who contains the faculties necessary to become president, stating that,

   “Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States”

   Hamilton, while discussing the safeguards, is not concerned with the possibility of an unfit individual becoming president, instead noting,

   It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

   Rules on the electors[edit]
   Hamilton references specific rules for the electors, which include:

   The electors meet only within their own specific states to select the president.
   No individuals who have “too great devotion of the President in office”
   No individuals who currently hold elected positions within the government may serve as electors.
   All of these are justified by Hamilton as devices to keep the people involved within the process, through removing different obstacles to the final goal of an uncorrupted electorate.

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68
   You can read the original text — it’s not that long — here http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-68.php
   —

   Also, it is not possible to predict which combination of states will be the winner. When Trump pulled ahead in Ohio, the pundits said Ohio was no longer a reliable indicator. Rudy Giuliani lost the primary election because he gambled on the big states like California and Florida without various combinations of small states. Hillary beat Obama in the states with primaries but Obama beat Clinton in the states with Caucuses and there were more of them. Only the most committed and therefore Leftist activists were involved in the caucus states. Because there are so many possible winning strategies, with the present system, it is hard to predict outcomes, much less corrupt them. Here is another example of how competition (in this case between possible strategies) democratizes, and eliminating it – having a single popular vote — could really be co-opted because it’s already computerized and all that’s needed is to hack that. There is always wide-spread voter-fraud on both sides in razor-thin-close elections. John F. Kennedy was elected that way because the Mafia stuffed ballot boxes in Chicago as a favor to his father, a former boot-legger but Nixon refused to challenge the election because he didn’t want to damage the Presidency. Gore challenged it based on some missing bags of ballots and alleged intimidation of Black voters in some districts in Florida. It’s the Dems changing the existing system we need to worry about. They’ve already done things like eliminate showing ID, getting rid of mechanical voting machines. Now, they are altering demographics with immigration policy. Expect to see a move to allow felons to vote.

2. @ Robert_k:
   Soros was recently interviewed and said that Trump will win the popular vote by a landslide but will lose in the electoral college because he will be swamped by negative ads in the swing states.

   The US must do away with the electoral college because it allows the few to affect the outcome by investing heavily in just a few states. It is tailor made for them.

3. The polls only reflect the popular vote not the electoral college map. Remember that Al Gore won the popular vote but still lost the elecctoral college. So shoe us the path to 270 delegates. Otherwise, Hillary is still the winner.