We're getting down to it in this election. It's been... um... interesting? Disturbing? Frustrating? Disgusting?!? All of the above. But one thing it's not been is boring.
I say that, but I've been bored with it at times. There were times when it looked like things were so hand-picked that we're looking at nothing really significant being done. And perhaps that's my biggest beef with Hillary - she's just boring. Donald is repulsive and reprehensible, but he's not boring. So thank goodness for that.
The CNN poll I saw today has Hillary ahead by five points. I am not sure how they arrived at that number, but it's significant because even though that's a fairly slim margin in the popular vote, the popular vote has only ever really been the slimmest of margins. This article from NPR points that out:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote
Interestingly, the point of that article is that it is POSSIBLE, however unlikely, that one may win the election with only 21% of the popular vote. And it has happened that the person with the most popular vote did not with the actual election (think Gore/Bush in 2000). In fact, the electoral college skews things so much that it's tough to find reason for its continued existence. I mean, I get it - one shouldn't have too much power in an election, and the potential for fraud is reduced when you use the electoral college. But it really feels like we're being disenfranchised... And maybe we are.
Also of interest is the idea that the electoral college is much more powerful in some states than it is in others. This distillation of representatives means that states like Utah and Wyoming have a proportionally larger number of votes than California or Texas. Utah has six electorates in the college, while California has 55. California has over 13 million voters for those 55 votes, while Utah has a million for its six. This means that every electorate in California represents 236,364 people, while in Utah that number is only 16,667 (numbers based on the 2012 election participation). And so what? Well, my vote in Utah has a lot more weight (ostensibly) than it would in California. Is that right? Is that fair?
It's interesting to consider how things might have shaken out if we went by the popular vote. Bush would never have been president in 2000, having lost the popular vote to Al Gore. That would have had implications regarding the War on Terror and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe we wouldn't have seen Barack Obama as president because of that. It's really had to say...
It's going to continue to be interesting with this election, too. Donald has already intimated that he wouldn't concede and has mentioned "fraud" or "rigged" several times. This is a little unnerving (I think Hillary's comment that it was "horrifying" was hyperbole, because whatever he says is irrelevant once he loses - and he will) and it may tie up the election results for a while. But in January we'll have a new president and everything will be just fine.
I say that, but I've been bored with it at times. There were times when it looked like things were so hand-picked that we're looking at nothing really significant being done. And perhaps that's my biggest beef with Hillary - she's just boring. Donald is repulsive and reprehensible, but he's not boring. So thank goodness for that.
The CNN poll I saw today has Hillary ahead by five points. I am not sure how they arrived at that number, but it's significant because even though that's a fairly slim margin in the popular vote, the popular vote has only ever really been the slimmest of margins. This article from NPR points that out:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote
Interestingly, the point of that article is that it is POSSIBLE, however unlikely, that one may win the election with only 21% of the popular vote. And it has happened that the person with the most popular vote did not with the actual election (think Gore/Bush in 2000). In fact, the electoral college skews things so much that it's tough to find reason for its continued existence. I mean, I get it - one shouldn't have too much power in an election, and the potential for fraud is reduced when you use the electoral college. But it really feels like we're being disenfranchised... And maybe we are.
Also of interest is the idea that the electoral college is much more powerful in some states than it is in others. This distillation of representatives means that states like Utah and Wyoming have a proportionally larger number of votes than California or Texas. Utah has six electorates in the college, while California has 55. California has over 13 million voters for those 55 votes, while Utah has a million for its six. This means that every electorate in California represents 236,364 people, while in Utah that number is only 16,667 (numbers based on the 2012 election participation). And so what? Well, my vote in Utah has a lot more weight (ostensibly) than it would in California. Is that right? Is that fair?
It's interesting to consider how things might have shaken out if we went by the popular vote. Bush would never have been president in 2000, having lost the popular vote to Al Gore. That would have had implications regarding the War on Terror and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe we wouldn't have seen Barack Obama as president because of that. It's really had to say...
It's going to continue to be interesting with this election, too. Donald has already intimated that he wouldn't concede and has mentioned "fraud" or "rigged" several times. This is a little unnerving (I think Hillary's comment that it was "horrifying" was hyperbole, because whatever he says is irrelevant once he loses - and he will) and it may tie up the election results for a while. But in January we'll have a new president and everything will be just fine.
Comments