Politics
Why Do the Democrats Hold an Electoral College Advantage?
As the 2016 US presidential race moves into the final ninety days, there’s been a lot of talk about the Democratic Party’s Electoral College edge that could lead Hillary Clinton to victory.
This advantage is well known, but I’ve never heard anyone explain it Did it just emerge out of nowhere? Did the Dems buy off some states that they now hold in their pocket? Or is there something we can learn about the Electoral College that might give us our marching orders?
Much is at stake in the 2016 contest and beyond. So why do the Democrats hold an Electoral College advantage?
First of all, let talk about the US Electoral College of which most American voters know very little.
It’s an institution that elects the President and VP every four years. Citizens do not directly elect the president or the vice president. Instead, they elect representatives called “electors”, who generally pledge to vote for the leaders their states have chosen via the popular vote.
Electors are apportioned to each of the 50 states as well as to the District of Columbia. The number of electors in each state is equal to the number of members of Congress to which the state is entitled, while the Twenty-third Amendment grants the District of Columbia the same number of electors as the least populous state, currently three.
Therefore, there are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia. The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector.
Except for the electors in Maine and Nebraska, electors are elected on a “winner-take-all” basis. That is, all electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in a state become electors for that state. Maine and Nebraska use the “congressional district method”, selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote.
The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) for the office of president is elected to that office.
The Twelfth Amendment also provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a president or vice president. If no candidate receives a majority for president, then the House of Representatives will select the president, with each state delegation (instead of each representative) having only one vote.
If no candidate receives a majority for vice president, then the Senate will select the vice president, with each senator having one vote. On four occasions, most recently in 2000, the Electoral College system has resulted in the election of a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election (George W. Bush).
Recently, a Republican strategist suggested that John Kasich choose a mainstream Democrat from another state and run a “Unity Ticket” against both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He noted that if these two candidates win their home states, then neither Hillary nor Trump can reach 270 electoral votes, thus throwing the election to Congress as outlined above.)
That’s your civics lesson of the day.
Why did our founders set up this system instead of just using a direct vote of the people?
Because they were smart. They realized rightly that “direct democracy” easily devolves into mob rule and group think. They also didn’t want the bigger states dominating the little ones. That’s another form of tyranny by the masses. They wanted the smaller states to have a fair say–for their votes to be meaningful.
So the Electoral College was born. It’s really a brilliant design to balance the power of large and small.
This brings us to the advantage of the Democratic Party in the Electoral College. Here’s the math to make it simple:
- At the present time, eighteen states in America reliably vote Democrat in every presidential election. Those states are on the west coast and eastern seaboard–and include some very large states such as California and New York. These eighteen states–called the “Blue Wall”–contain 237 electoral votes–just 23 short of what’s needed to win.
- Another fourteen states–most of which are in the Mid-west and South have reliably voted Republican for years. But they are states with smaller populations and thus smaller Electoral College votes. The red States make up 101 electoral votes.
This gives the Democratic Party a huge advantage. Their candidate, unless they’re a murderer or spouse-beater, has a pretty strong lock on 247 electoral votes. They only need to snag a few more states–like Ohio and Florida–or any other combination of smaller states to win.
On the other hand, the Republican standard-bearer needs to run the table of many states to add enough electoral votes to their 101 to triumph.
Thus the “Blue Wall” electoral “lock” of the Democrats. This has been true of every presidential election since Ronald Reagan swept 49 states in 1988. Since that time, the “Blue Wall” has emerged to frustrate many Republican candidates for president.
Why is this so?
Here is the reality behind the electoral math.
1. America is in a world view battle in which the Judeo-Christian worldview is being overtaken by the secular/atheist worldview.
In terms of colors, biblical faith equals red and secular progressive equals blue. Over the past five decades more people have become secular than have been born again in Christ.
2. Secular group think has mushroomed in the urban cities of the west and east coasts.
Take my own state of Washington. For the past few decades, if you color a map of Washington by the votes of each county, then your map would look almost entirely red (Judeo-Christian) except for a blue circle in King County (secular) where Seattle is located. By glancing at the map you might think that Washington is a Red State with a blue dot. But, over half of the state’s population lives in that King County blue circle–so WA is usually locked down for the Dems.
Same is true of Oregon (Portland dominating the redness of the rest of the state), and also California where secular, urban Los Angeles gives the country’s most populous state a definite blue edge.
It’s assumed by most people that Hillary Clinton will win this secular “Left Coast.” Urban folks near the Pacific Ocean have tended to turn away from God, biblical morality and traditional values.
The same is true of most of the city-dwellers of the east coast–where much of the national population lies. Big urban states like New York and New Jersey are Democratic strongholds, and the other cities in other eastern and Midwestern states have become breeding grounds for Democratic votes.
3. The secularizing of the public schools (latter 20th century) and the radical atheism that now rules in academia on a collegiate level is a huge mega-phone for atheism.
Most of our colleges, both public (i.e. state universities) and private (Ivy League Schools) are in the cities growing humanist/secularist philosophy like a sociological cancer. They are also churning out “blue votes” by focusing on humanist causes and bashing those who believe in God and share conservative values.
The atheists have understood the following maxim better than God-fearing people: The philosophy of the schools in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
4. Most of the mainstream media emanates from the cities and multiplies the liberal bias.
Think of the power of Hollywood in the west and Manhattan in the east. The majority of the media outlets in these areas pump out secular progressive news slants on a daily basis ridiculing Christians, advocating for abortion, promoting sexual deviancy, pushing for bgger government, and pointing the culture to man-made solutions instead of humble submission to a Higher Power.
The media are primary sponsors of the growing “Blue Wall.”
5. Human depravity makes it easier to be selfish, secular, and me-oriented rather than developing the strength of godly character.
It’s easier to sin than to be virtuous and self-controlled. So it’s easier to be a Democrat who wants the government to give us everything (like free college education) than to be a Republican and believes you need to work for it and pay for it yourself.
Being liberal caters to the flesh. Judeo-Christians values require character and self-control.
6. There is a devil and a satanic kingdom who are conspiring to bring down the heritage and exceptionalism of the United States through atheist propaganda.
We are not just fighting human words. There is a demonic contingent behind the issues that are trying to destroy both people and nations.
What must the people of God do to knock down the Blue “Iron Curtain”?
First, understand how it was built. Second, pray for God’s awakening of his people to do his will on earth. Third, share our faith with passion as never before! Fourth, possess a greater long-range vision for our neighborhoods, schools, universities, the media and all aspects of government than the other side does.
May God help us.
What the Presidential Tickets Tell Us About America
Tonight, the first woman in American history to represent her party for president of the United States–Hillary Rodham Clinton–will make her acceptance speech before the Democratic National Convention.
Last week, the Republicans nominated the first non-politician/non military person–businessman Donald Trump–to head a presidential ticket. Trump chose Indiana governor Mike Pence as his running mate and Hillary Clinton selected Virginia senator (and former governor) Tim Kaine as her VP.
The presidential tickets are now set and in fourteen weeks, we with choose our 45th chief executive.
What do this year’s choices tell us about America?
We need to be constantly reminded that we live in a brief corridor of history where people pick their leaders. Abraham Lincoln called it “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
In other words, we are the government. We vote for our leaders, they represent us in enacting and enforcing our laws, and those laws are meant to benefit the people. That formula–“people power”–is what made America (among other things) a very exceptional nation.
It was not always so.
On a recent trip to Asia, I read a book called The Story of the World, Part I by Susan Wise Bauer. It gives a fascinating portrayal of the broad strokes of history–from the beginning of time to the end of the Roman Empire (Part II covers the Middle Ages to the present).
If any one thing characterized life during the past seven thousand years, it was this:
Despots. Tyrants. All powerful kings.
The Bible mentions Nimrod and Babel. Then came Sargon in Sumeria, the Pharoahs in Egypt, and numerous Babylonian and Assyrian dictators. For a brief time, Greece and Rome returned some power to the people in their early city-states, but eventually they fell to the likes of Alexander the Great and numerous Caesars.
In other parts of the world it was the same story. Whether India, China, or the ancient New World, warrior chiefs or strong men rose to the top of their tribes and ruled their societies. As I read chapter after chapter of The Story of the World, it struck me that most people in history lived in daily fear of being wiped out by the nearest tribe, chieftain, emperor or strong man and lived their lives doing what the dictator told them to do.
Elections and freedom didn’t exist.
Until America.
Of course, hundreds of years of the development of Christian civilization in Europe paved the way. As European people came to Christ and began reading and applying the Bible to everyday life, human rights rose in people’s hearts and rulers began to be replaced by laws.
For 6500 years it was Rex rex–the King is king (you do what he says). But, over the past five hundred years, humankind took a giant leap.
Lex rex. The Law is king (Do what the people want).
America was the world’s first biblically-oriented society that put that truth into governmental form.
This Sunday night, I encourage you to watch Bill O’Reilly’s Legends and Lies docu-drama on the Fox News Network. For the past two months it’s been the most watched weekend program in the nation. It chronicles the truths and myths behind the American Revolution. This week it will focus on America’s first president, General George Washington.
For those of us who’ve enjoyed free elections for the past 230 years, it’s hard to believe that many early American colonists wanted to make George Washington the first king of the colonies. Why? Because kings were all they’d ever known (throughout history). And kings were often tyrants–just like King George of England.
Human beings had always been dominated by strong men.
America exceptionally led the world into freedom by rejecting power at the top and giving it to a “moral and religious people” (John Adam’s words) who would govern themselves through laws made and enforced by their representatives.
“Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
That was the essence of the American Revolution. It was an idea that changed the world.
In the 6500 years of “dictator” history, kings did not always reflect their subjects. Good societies could be led by evil tyrants or vice versa. Occasionally in history God used good leaders to bring renewal to the people (David, Hezekiah and Josiah et al). Other times, bad rulers were a sign of judgment to a back-slidden nation (e.g. Manasseh, Nebuchanezzar).
In modern free societies who elect their leaders, there’s a clearer correlation between magistrates and people. Good people (moral and religious) generally vote for righteous leaders. Bad societies (immoral and selfish) usually vote for narcissists like themselves.
Thus, leaders of free voting nations are “mirrors of the people.”
So, what do the two presidential tickets tell us about the American people in 2016?
1. A majority of Americans (or an influential minority of those who vote) are atheists or secularists. This is the first election in post-Christian America. Neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton (despite what they say) are anchored to biblical truth. Trump is a populist bully and Clinton is a corrupt, career politician. One’s a bellicose outsider and the other is a sleazy insider. The majorities of both parties voted for these man-centered politicians–telling you much about themselves.
2. A good portion of the American electorate is angry–not a great virtue. Trump supporters want strength and less government. Their strongest moral value is work ethic = I can do it myself. This is Trump’s message and that of his impressive children. It’s not “I can do all things through Christ” (Ephesians 4:13) but rather “I can get it done if I work hard enough.”
Clinton supporters are just as self-oriented, but from the opposite tack. They want America to be weak in the world and receive as many entitlements as they can get (free health care, college tuition, etc.–hey, why don’t we throw in free cars and mortgages?). Bernie Sander’s audiences epitomized this nanny state consumerism. Their message is: “You do it for ME!”
Each of these candidates represent flip sides of the same coin of self. It’s either protect me or give me. Both ideas will erode the power of liberty in the American nation.
3. Mike Pence and Tim Kaine represent America’s Christian past–now a minority view in the country. That’s why they’re in the second slot, not the first chair. On the Republican side, many biblically-grounded candidates were voted down in favor of the strong man, Trump. Pence is a sound evangelical who would have made a fine president. He’s “Christian, conservative and Republican” in that order. Time Kaine is a former Catholic missionary who’s personally pro-life–kind of a 21st century JFK.
Both were chosen because Trump and Clinton recognize their need for the “God-vote” in the country to put them over the top. In truth, I’d love to see both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton step down and let Pence and Kaine run for the highest office in the land. Their match-up would be worthy of our heritage. Unfortunately, in 2016, they are just a faint echo of a once Judeo-Christian, freedom-loving society.
4. Hillary Clinton probably has the edge because those who want free stuff are more united than those who want to be protected. Even with the splinter of the Sander’s insurgency, Democrats tend to coalesce around their standard bearer (90%). This year, due to Trump’s obvious faults, Republicans are in the 70% support range. That probably means a third Obama term and accelerating American decline.
Look in the mirror, America! These four faces are staring back at you:
- God-loving and fearing conservatives. (Pence)
- Religious moderates (Kaine).
- Angry pragmatists – Trump-eteers, and
- Angry narcissists – Clintonites
But anger is at the top of the ticket with godly values along for the ride. How foolish we are. I wish it were Pence versus Kaine. But that train has left the station in 2016.
Keep praying for God’s break-out among our “leaders”–we, the people.
Why I Will Vote For Donald Trump
All of my adult life I’ve been intrigued and involved in the leadership aspects of presidential politics in the US. Why?
First, I’m simply wired by God to care about leaders of nations. It’s a calling–a passion. Secondly, I’ve been a leader all my life and teach university courses on the subject. Third, I wrote my first book on presidential elections in 1976–and have followed them ever since. Finally, I believe that the president of the United States has a unique role to play in global morality, security and world missions.
I was very excited about this year’s election because many fine governors, senators, and business people had a chance in the presidential race. I believed five or six of them could make excellent leaders of an American renewal. One by one they were rejected by the voters.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump now appear to be the presumptive candidates.
Why will I vote for Donald Trump?
He was clearly not my first choice–not even close. That’s because my measure of presidential leadership, and all other forms of civic affairs, comes done to three vital characteristics (in order of importance).
1. Does the candidate have strong godly character? Character is the number one quality of leadership because leaders reproduce what they are and demand trust. Trust only comes from proven character over time.
2. Does the candidate have the necessary competence for the job–a resume of accomplishment? If the first quality focuses on the heart, the second analyzes a person’s skill set. A good leader is a strong motivator and delegator. They have a solid track record of accomplishing things through other people. They manage both resources and people well.
3. Does the candidate possess strong biblical policies (worldview)? After heart and skill, their mind-set is key. They need to see the world through a truthful, common sense lens and enact policies that serve people. Their job, on the highest of levels, is to protect the country from evil, elevate people to their God-given destinies and promote a strong social fabric.
Character, competence, and ideas. When we think of great presidents from Washington to Lincoln and Roosevelt to Reagan, these are the three pillars of the leadership triad we remember.
A year ago, I took this tri-focal lens into the 2016 presidential race and concluded that a number of Republican candidates were worthy of consideration. Over the months as I watched the campaign unfold, I settled on Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz as my top picks. Both were strong on all three facets, Hispanic (an historic novelty), and young (a plus for electability).
In the end, the Republican voters chose differently and elevated Donald Trump to presumptive nominee.
Here’s my quick take on Trump’s “triad” of qualifications:
- Character – Often weak, childish, and inconsistent. Strong points are work ethic and perseverance.
- Competence – High marks for business acumen and savvy. Low grades on some business principles including questionable ventures (casinos), bankruptcies, and frivolous lawsuits.
- Policies – Talks conservative but has a history of being liberal. Definitely not guided by principles or a moral code–and probably a mixed bag in the end.
Then there is Hillary Clinton. Character? Corrupt. Competence? Little leadership experience and a poor Secretary of States. Policies? Secular progressive, maybe a little more hawkish than President Obama on terrorism.
Yet, some who normally vote Republican may be voting for Hillary. Or staying home. They call themselves the #Never Trump folks. One that I respect is Erick Erickson. Here is his take on Trump:
“I still, however, will not be voting for Donald Trump. The choice between Clinton and Trump is like choosing smallpox or anthrax. I’ll pass on both.”
That’s a powerful metaphor. Small pox or anthrax. Sounds like two evils to me and the prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, was fond of saying “Of two evils, choose neither.”
But people are not evils. I agree with Spurgeon that when forced to choose between murder and stealing, then it’s right to do neither. But people are not simple evil choices–unless you’re choosing between Hitler and Stalin. Then I might agree.
Let’s be honest and clear: Neither Hillary Clinton of Donald Trump are evil personified. They both have strengths but also many weaknesses. It would be more honest to say that they are not the best choices in character, competence, and policies.
Erickson continues:
“If the election comes down to a single vote nationally and that single vote is in Georgia, I will gladly accept the blame for Donald Trump losing. But I still suspect Trump will lose and that he will lose disastrously. The only thing, however, that will be more disastrous for the GOP than a Trump loss would be a Trump victory. It would be a win for sheer jackassery by the American public.”
“I would rather take blame for Trump’s loss…than endorse a candidacy that has done nothing but bring out the worst in people, elevated the petty vanities of narcissists, and emboldened a white nationalist subculture best left in the roach motel of American politics.”
I disagree with Erickson and all the other “NeverTrumps.” They’re reacting, not thinking long-term, and caught in the “pride” of their movement. It was started to stop Trump–a noble task during the primaries. But they failed. In things like this, Ronald Reagan reminded us a generation ago to “never say never.”
The #NeverTrump folks need to drop their pride. And here’s why. There is one primary reason that I will vote for Donald Trump on November 8, 2016:
The United States Supreme Court.
I don’t deny that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump could be bad presidents due to the lack of the leadership triad. They are secularists–one a progressive and the other a regressive. They both drink from the pond of worldly principles and aspirations.
But here’s the big difference: If Hillary Clinton becomes president (or Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden if Hillary is indicted), the morals and security of our nation could be lost for a generation–or forever–with the 1-3 Supreme Court justices that she will likely choose. Any Democrat will choose a flaming liberal that will increase secular tyranny in the land.
Under a Clinton nominee: Abortion? Safe. Gun rights? Gone. Religious liberty? Poof! Obamacare? Saved. Secular progressives are trying with all their might to tear down the God-given rights of our Christian-based republic because they are motivated by dark forces and desire a one world government (no borders).
For all his faults, we know that Donald J. Trump will elect better justices than Hillary Clinton. Maybe far better.
Last week Trump released a list of eleven judges he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. The list includes several people often found on conservative wish lists, including Diane Sykes, William Pryor and Joan Larsen. Several of the judges were appointed by President George W. Bush, and many serve on state supreme courts with distinction.
Early reaction from congressional Republicans was positive, with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) praising the presumptive GOP presidential nominee as having put forward an “impressive list of highly qualified jurists.”
“Understanding the types of judges a presidential nominee would select for the Supreme Court is an important step in this debate so the American people can have a voice in the direction of the Supreme Court for the next generation,” he said.
Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the second-ranking Republican in the upper chamber, said Trump made a “smart move” releasing the names. “It’s reassuring for conservatives to know what he’ll be looking for were he elected president,” Cornyn told CNN.
I don’t like Donald Trump’s morals, marriages, personality, and many policies. But I’m going to pray for him and vote for him because of the importance of
The United States Supreme Court.
And I agree with the perspective of Pastor Carl Gallups, who’s also voting for Trump:
“There are many real questions for Christians. Who will best give us the opportunity to be real Christians? Which choice for president will best defend the Christian heritage, ideals and foundation of this nation? Which candidate will best defend America’s borders and security? Which candidate will most likely work hard to improve the economy and return industry, corporations, and jobs to America?”
“Which candidate is most likely to be most ‘friendly’ to the Christian community at large – as well as with Israel? Which candidate will most likely give those of us who are Christians and pastors the opportunities to address, fight, and possibly defeat some of the moral insanities that have been inflicted upon this nation in the last eight years? Which president do you want to see sitting across the table from the diabolic regimes of the world trying to hold back the flood of evil they wish to inflict upon the United States – Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton?”
Donald Trump is not a savior, Cyrus, or Nebuchanezzar. He’s the best of two questionable candidates. But, who knows. Maybe God could grab a hold of this man and use him for Kingdom purposes–especially if he surrounds himself with a great supporting cast.
Of course, what we really need in America is Jesus–in many more hearts and homes, an explosion of salvation and discipleship! In the meantime, it’s “occupy until I come” which includes the duty of voting.
I’ve made my civic decision on how I’m going to vote.
Now it’s your turn.