18 November 2016

Sore winners

All through the summer and into the fall I had to listen to one old lady who called into my newspaper's opinion line to rant against the Electoral College. Obviously Donald Trump was right about the election being rigged, she'd say, because the media was saying that Hillary Clinton had already cinched such-and-such a number of electoral votes. As far as she was concerned, election analysts were telling her that the popular vote didn't matter, only the electoral vote, which somehow Clinton had already won. But there would be hell to pay, she vowed, should Trump win the popular vote yet lose in the Electoral College. As everyone knows, the reverse took place on Election Day. As of the latest count, Trump trails Clinton in the popular vote by just over 1.1 million votes, yet he is President-elect thanks to his success in less-populous states that still get a minimum of three electoral votes for their Senators and Representatives. By the rules set down in the Constitution, Trump has won fair and square and, just as the old lady warned -- she's one of those who claims not to like Trump, by the way, but voted for him anyway and expects everyone else to kiss his ass now -- the popular vote didn't matter. But she can't let the matter go. Too many people are calling Trump a "minority President," making that an excuse not to give the poor man a chance. So now she calls questioning the legitimacy of the popular vote. If the Democrat got more votes, it must be due to fraud: repeat voting, dead people voting, illegal immigrant voting, etc. She happens to think that that's how Barack Obama won both times. She claims to have once been a Democrat, but now believes all the old propaganda about Democratic election fraud -- not all of which is fraudulent -- that Republicans have been peddling ever since there have been Republicans. I suppose that tells you that it's not the party but the voters that make you believe those stories. But why get worked up about it when no one's going to stop Trump -- who in another vindication of his sterling integrity has agreed to a multimillion dollar settlement of the Trump University suits -- from taking office in January. Why worry whether Clinton won the popular vote -- and let's note that she didn't win a majority of it -- when winning it is meaningless? There are probably two reasons. One is that on some level the old lady still thinks of the Electoral College as illegitimate in some way, or at least as an insufficient mandate in the face of Trump being physically outpolled by Clinton. The other is that people like her, despite their own professed reservations about the man, simply do not want to see or hear anyone on the other side say anything bad about Donald Trump. They may even have thinner skin about it than Trump himself has, but the heart of the matter is that they want to see the "elite," the liberals, the "mainstream media," all humbled if not cowed into submission, but while many in these groups are chagrined, they are not yet humbled in any submissive sense of the word. Trump's voters are definitely more interested in this outcome, I think, than Trump is, because they feel these elites and their clients have lorded it over them in a way Trump can't really empathize with, and the longer their enemies remain unhumbled the less Trump's inauguration will calm them. They want scores settled, and not just with the Clintons, and they won't feel that they've won along with Trump until they see  the entire liberal establishment laid low. They had better not hold their breaths.

5 comments:

Unknown said...

More non-thought by The Think Institute. You not only lost. You were massacred. Boo-hoo.

Samuel Wilson said...

All too true, but independents get massacred every cycle. However, you mistake me for someone who's crying about it. For all that you guys affect contempt for such scenes, you seem to enjoy imagining them.

hobbyfan said...

Let me spell it out for you, Unknown. I didn't vote for Trump, but we move on anyway, and have to show Dumb Donald some respect. Swillary Clinton's career, though, is over, if not on life support.

Anonymous said...

I think an obvious solution would be sort of a step-backwards. First, no candidate gets a running mate. The electoral college chooses the president, as it stands. But in a case where the electoral vote and the popular vote don't match, the winner of the popular vote gets the runner-up price: the vice-presidency.

@Unknown: Being a poor winner is even worse than being a poor loser. tRump may have won the election, but you're still a loser.

Samuel Wilson said...

Anon: You put your finger on why the EV system had to be changed after 1800. Originally the EV runner-up became VP automatically, but as political parties formed they invented the idea of a running mate, the idea being that each party's electors would split their vote to ensure that their team would win both spots. The Federalists botched this in 1796 and as a result the "Republican" (not GOP) candidate, Jefferson, ended up John Adams' VP. The Republicans botched it a different way in 1800, so that Jefferson and running mate Aaron Burr tied in the EV, forcing the election to the House of Representatives and provoking a crisis when Burr seemed willing to bargain for a win. If partisan had been nipped in the bud somehow by forbidding running mates, who knows how history may have differed? Now, of course, a hostile VP probably would be given nothing to do but preside over the Senate, where the President will hope that no votes are close.