11-20-2016, 07:47 AM
(11-20-2016, 02:36 AM)Galen Wrote:(11-20-2016, 01:19 AM)taramarie Wrote: Yes she did which means she should have won. I do not understand the way the election process works over there. Sounds unusual. If she was more popular she should have won IMO.
No, that is wrong because you don't understand that the US is a federal system. I suggest that you listen to Tom Woods as usual he is a good source on historical matters. Consider this, if it was a simple popular vote then four or maybe five major urban centers would decide who the president would be. No one else would matter.
The idea behind the Electoral College was that the States, and not the People, would choose the President. In 1787 the States were close to being individual republics with hostile interests. and mass voting by isolated and barely-literate people was to be avoided. In 1787 even the state boundaries were ill-defined, with the States making claims far beyond their current borders. Virginia (which then included what would be West Virginia beginning 1863), basically drew a line due northwest from the border of West Virginia where the Ohio River meets the Pennsylvania state line and claimed everything to the south and west of that line but to the east of the Mississippi River and north of the current Kentucky-Tennessee state line. Virginia actually recognized an "Illinois County" as one of its own -- which coincides largely to the modern state of Illinois. In contrast, Connecticut made a claim to lands due west of its boundaries not already part of the state, which would have put such places as the eventual sites of Cleveland, South Bend, and Chicago in Connecticut had that claim persisted.
The original thirteen states already had distinct political and cultural character. The Fourteenth, Vermont, in fact seceded from New York as an independent republic and joined the Union upon giving up its independence. Kentucky (15) and Tennessee (16) got well-defined character early, being formed of mountaineers just beyond the reach of effective government by Virginia and North Carolina, respectively.
I can skip over Ohio (17), which has little defined character as a state because it straddles regions. Louisiana (18) really has some distinctive character because of the strong French colonial influence upon culture and institutions. It had to be its own state. After Louisiana, most of the states are very artificial creations. I've been on almost the whole of Interstate 80, and you can't tell me that you couldn't tell me what state you are in between about Lincoln, Nebraska and Cleveland, Ohio by simply looking out the window of your car unless you see an urban skyline. (That also applies to southern Michigan along Interstates 94 or 96) You would recognize the distinctive skylines of Cleveland, Toledo, South Bend, the greater Chicago metro area, the Quad Cities, Omaha, Lincoln... or for that matter, Detroit, Lansing, Kalamazoo, or Grand Rapids. Except for Texas, California, Alaska, and Hawaii all of the later states are themselves very artificial creations. If you don't believe me on this, then explain why Mississippi and Alabama and Arizona and New Mexico were both divided latitudinally instead of longitudinally before being admitted as states, and the rectangular shapes of Colorado and Wyoming and nearly-rectangular shapes of Kansas and Utah? We may have had elections decided because the six states admitted to the Union in 1890 were admitted with little obvious foresight of why they were so divided.
The Electoral College demonstrates a reality of 1787 that isn't quite true today: that the states are different enough that they must decide who becomes President, and great masses of isolated and ill-educated people beyond the control of state governments, are not so commonplace anymore.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.