The Electoral College and Why Hillary Lost

The Electoral College voted on Monday and made it official: Donald Trump is our next President.

In the news, there still are moans and groans and gnashing of teeth: Hillary lost. She won the popular vote. Why doesn't that make her the winner? These people are now blaming the Electoral College and calling for its elimination.

This is wrong-headed. This is the United States of America. While in many ways we are one people, we are also an incredibly diverse people. People from different areas of the nation have different needs, opinions, experiences and points of view. We always have. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they took this into account. The compromise they forged created the Electoral College. It allowed states with limited voter turn-out (no need to get into the why of that in this post.) to stand on an equal footing with states with a large voter turnout when it comes to selecting the President and Vice President.

In the 1790s, states like Virginia had a large population but, due to literacy and property ownership requirements, a small voting public. Other states did not place these restrictions on voting: Massachusetts had universal male suffrage and New Jersey, while requiring voters to own property, allowed women to vote. This is according to Original Sin: The Electoral College as a Pro-Slavery Tool by Paul Finkelman.

The problem of large voter states versus small voter states still persists today. The roll of the demographic dice has changed the names and moved states from one camp to the other. Different states still have different concerns and needs, as shown by the recent election.

Highly urbanized states along the east and west coasts are different form the other states. They have fared relatively well since the Great Recession. The old "Industrial Heartland," or more derogatorily, the "Rust Belt" states have not recovered half as well. The coal-producing states have seen almost no recovery and, with cheap natural gas, have seen jobs continue to diminish. The "Farm Belt" states have seen a continuing loss of jobs for the last fifty years, or more.

With a popular vote system, the needs of the areas that are hurting would get buried by the tsunami of votes from the urban states. The Electoral College ensures that smaller voices will be heard.

This gets back to why Hillary lost: she forgot the smaller voices.

• She did not criticize the Obama administration for its failure to aid the Rust Belt, the Coal Belt and the Farm Belt. If anything, his policies made the Great Recession worse for these areas.
• She did not offer a plan to increase employment in these areas, to offer a future for these areas' young people or to preserve the scattered small towns.
• She assumed that she had the Union vote, without offering them anything.
• She epitomized the problem of "Inside-the-Beltway Thinking"
• She was guilty of assuming that urban women's concerns were the same as rural women's concerns
• She did not put forth a meaningful plan to deal with the rural opioid addiction problem, which is very different from the urban drug addiction and substance abuse problems.
• She did not discuss the critical health care shortages in the Rust, Coal and Farm Belt areas.
• All of her comments about immigration centered on those who went to the cities. She ignored those who toil in the shadows on farms, cultivating and harvesting crops that cannot be machine harvested.
• She did not offer meaningful immigration reform. This would have drawn votes from those trying to bring their friends and families into the country.
• Her points on jobs centered around large corporations and urban jobs. She left out the small corporations, family businesses and sole proprietorships that are the backbone of the Coal and Farm Belt economies and are, nation wide, the biggest generators of jobs.
• Worst of all and through it all, she acted as if she was entitled to become the Democratic nominee and to become our next President.

As a result, she lost the "small voice" vote leaving the state-by-state vote totals looking as follows (as reposted from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2016_general/president/map.html:

I Watched the Presidential Debate

I watched the debate last night. My experience was summed up in the pre-debate remark: "Are we going to watch Barf-nado 3 tonight?"

As of right now, I do not know which Presidential contender I will vote for.

I do not like Hillary Clinton's plans. She wants to increase taxes on the rich to pay for a plethora of new social programs. That sounds great, until you do the numbers. Say there are 300 million people in this country. If we assume that the average family is approximately three people, that leaves only 100 million tax-paying families. The rich "one percenters" therefore account for 1 million. If you increase their taxes by $10,000 each, you will raise $10 billion dollars. Compared the the government deficit, that is peanuts. There simply are not enough rich to cover Mrs. Clinton's plans. To make matters worse, many of the rich tax-payers will pay tax accountants and lawyers to find ways to reduce that $10,000 burden.

If we use Wikipedia's poverty numbers for 2011, there are 46.2 million Americans living in poverty. Let us use the following formula for the middle class:

300 million - 3 million "rich" - 46 million poor = 251 million people

Again assuming a family of three, that amounts to 83.6 million tax-paying families. If you raise their taxes by a mere $100, you will raise $8.3 billion. Raise their taxes by $500, and you get $42 billion. Now, just where do you think Mrs. Clinton can get the money to pay for her programs?

Mr. Trump's tax cutting program makes even less sense. The Laufer Curve has been derided as the "Laughter Curve" since the end of the Reagen Presidency. Our Federal budget is too bloated for a tax cut. We need to rethink and reprioritize spending and revenue sources. We need to spend smarter and waste less. Tax dollars are a precious resource and must be carefully husbanded and used wisely.

I could write about each of their major plans. Each sounds good, but I do not think the political will exists to implement any of them after Inauguration Day.

Neither of these candidates is worth voting for.

What do I want to see in November??

BETTER CHOICES!

Oh! By the way, early voting begins on Monday, October 24, here in Texas.