An interesting take on “the popular vote.”

Charles Lane of the Washington Post penned an interesting article (Griping over the popular vote? Get over it.) In it he compared the presidential election to a football game.

Lane noted that Denver Bronco fans were outraged that the National Football League awarded a win to the Tennessee Titans on Sunday because they scored more points than the Broncos when, in fact, the Broncos had scored more total yards. As it turns out the rules of the game before starting a contest matter a great deal.

Hillary had 2.8 million more popular votes than did Donald Trump. However, if the rules of a football game were that the team with the most total yards wins then the coaches would employ a different strategy than attempting to garner the most points.  The same is true for the presidential election.

As both Clinton and Trump knew at the outset the real contest was in the so-called “swing states.” There were 13 swing states. Those were the states where the “popular vote” mattered. Trump won that contest-within-a-contest by 816,000 votes.

Voters are not all stupid. For example, I know, as a Californian, that my vote for president will not count. I vote Republican and the large majority of voters in my state vote a straight Democrat ticket. Therefore, the popular vote reflects not only true preferences but also strategic voting (or abstention) by people in non-swing states.

Electoral college critics need to recognize that changing one rule would bring many more changes along with it.

  • We would see the party in power at the run up to the election tilt policy to vote-rich metropolitan areas. Farming communities would be forgotten.
  • A 50-state patchwork of election laws controls presidential contests now. Ballots cast under different legal rules (for registration, early voting, voter ID, recounts and the like) would not be sufficiently equivalent.
  • We would need a national election law that could be quite different than the laws governing senators and congressmen. Again, the party in power at the run up to the election could “amend” the law in their favor.

The point is, it would be a different ballgame and not necessarily one that Americans would think is “fairer.”

Roy Filly


About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to An interesting take on “the popular vote.”

  1. Flayer says:

    Just ask a complaining Democrat if we should continue to have 2 senators from each state, large or small, or even bother with states. Think how much money we would save by dissolving the senate. Haha. They’re just desperate. And this is exactly why I always vote in national elections even though I am a resident in CA, regardless of whether my vote adds to the electoral college or not. A right not exercised is a right lost. However, it is very difficult voting in state and local elections. In Silicon Valley we have the choice of Progressive Tweedle Dee or Liberal Tweedle Dum.

  2. Starchild says:

    You make good and valid points here Roy. I agree with your analysis. But even Donald Trump still thinks the popular vote matters – enough so that he is willing to make the preposterous claim that he won it based on millions of “illegals” voting, without offering any evidence for that claim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.