The Popular Vote by the Numbers
Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein is raising money to pay for recounts of the presidential voting in the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. It is an interesting notion since she has nothing to gain personally from the recount. It won't change her dismal 4th place finish in the voting in each of these states.
The margins in each of these states are very narrow.
Michigan - Trump leads by 11,613 votes, which is 0.2% of the total votes cast.
Pennsylvania - Trump leads by 68,236 votes, which is 1.1% of the total votes cast.
Wisconsin - Trump leads by 27,257 votes, which is 0.9% of the total votes cast.
These margins are not comparable to the razor-thin 537 vote victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential race in Florida. But they are small enough to make a recount a sensible move. Of course, were the results to wind up in Hillary Clinton's favor, Donald Trump's attorneys will head directly to court and another presidential election will wind up before a Supreme Court where a majority decision is highly unlikely.
Recounts are not free. It will cost over $2 million just to file the recount requests for the three states. Attorney fees and the cost of the actual recounts will push the total expense in excess of $6 million.
While many are pushing for the recounts, the Clinton campaign hasn't commented on the issue yet. They may be considering their options, but with the deadline to file recount requests coming up early next week, time is short.
The three states in question represent 16, 20 and 10 electoral votes respectively. All three results would have to go in favor of Hillary Clinton to change the outcome of the electoral college vote, assuming there are no faithless electors.
I'd like to see the recount happen.
* * *
So why is it that Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has grown to over 2 million votes? That's easy. She is leading by 4.4 million votes in California alone. When you add in the other states with larger populations that she carried by wide margins, New Jersey and New York, that lead grows significantly. Add back in the margins Donald Trump won by in the states that he carried, and California's large population and strong backing of Hillary Clinton are the reason why she has such a big popular vote lead.
While the framers of our Constitution aren't around to confirm my suspicion, I'm fairly certain they did not imagine a United States where 4% of the states would contain 20% of the total population. As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, the Electoral College as constituted today is nowhere near representing the people on a one-person, one-vote basis. But is it entirely fair to select a president to represent a nation of 50 states when California, the most populous state has a population larger than that of the 21 least populated states?
I believe the answer to that question is yes. We are supposed to be one country, not an alliance of 50 separate entities. The rights of the separate states are protected by their equal representation in the Senate, so as to ensure the states with larger populations cannot run roughshod over the lesser populated states in passing legislation. As one nation, with a Constitution that does not provide a process for secession, we must have one president and that president should be chosen to represent the will of the people. By a popular vote, not an electoral college.
The margins in each of these states are very narrow.
Michigan - Trump leads by 11,613 votes, which is 0.2% of the total votes cast.
Pennsylvania - Trump leads by 68,236 votes, which is 1.1% of the total votes cast.
Wisconsin - Trump leads by 27,257 votes, which is 0.9% of the total votes cast.
These margins are not comparable to the razor-thin 537 vote victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential race in Florida. But they are small enough to make a recount a sensible move. Of course, were the results to wind up in Hillary Clinton's favor, Donald Trump's attorneys will head directly to court and another presidential election will wind up before a Supreme Court where a majority decision is highly unlikely.
Recounts are not free. It will cost over $2 million just to file the recount requests for the three states. Attorney fees and the cost of the actual recounts will push the total expense in excess of $6 million.
While many are pushing for the recounts, the Clinton campaign hasn't commented on the issue yet. They may be considering their options, but with the deadline to file recount requests coming up early next week, time is short.
The three states in question represent 16, 20 and 10 electoral votes respectively. All three results would have to go in favor of Hillary Clinton to change the outcome of the electoral college vote, assuming there are no faithless electors.
I'd like to see the recount happen.
* * *
So why is it that Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote has grown to over 2 million votes? That's easy. She is leading by 4.4 million votes in California alone. When you add in the other states with larger populations that she carried by wide margins, New Jersey and New York, that lead grows significantly. Add back in the margins Donald Trump won by in the states that he carried, and California's large population and strong backing of Hillary Clinton are the reason why she has such a big popular vote lead.
While the framers of our Constitution aren't around to confirm my suspicion, I'm fairly certain they did not imagine a United States where 4% of the states would contain 20% of the total population. As I pointed out in an earlier blog entry, the Electoral College as constituted today is nowhere near representing the people on a one-person, one-vote basis. But is it entirely fair to select a president to represent a nation of 50 states when California, the most populous state has a population larger than that of the 21 least populated states?
I believe the answer to that question is yes. We are supposed to be one country, not an alliance of 50 separate entities. The rights of the separate states are protected by their equal representation in the Senate, so as to ensure the states with larger populations cannot run roughshod over the lesser populated states in passing legislation. As one nation, with a Constitution that does not provide a process for secession, we must have one president and that president should be chosen to represent the will of the people. By a popular vote, not an electoral college.
posted by me at 3:45 PM
<< Home