Responses to column: Your Vote Still Counts

By Dan Dunkle | Jan 21, 2017

I have received two responses to my columns, which ran in the last two editions of The Courier-Gazette arguing your vote still counts. In the first column I discussed the Electoral College at length.

You can read the original column at this link:http://knox.villagesoup.com/p/yes-cheryl-your-vote-still-counts/1612056

Jack Marchant of South Thomaston and Summerset Key, Fla., writes:

After reading your two-part editorial concerning "Does my vote count?", I'd like to point out the following fact about our recent election.

The national media has made a big deal out of the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes but lost the electoral vote. A fact that has not been widely reported is:

Hillary won the popular vote in California by a little more than 3 million votes. If we discount both Hillary's and Trump's California votes, we see that Trump won both the popular and the Electoral vote on a national 49 state basis. Hillary was elected President of California so to speak, and wasn't elected to anything in the rest of our country. Our national media continues to have their own agenda.....rather than just reporting the news.

I looked into this online. In fact, Clinton won the popular vote in California by about $4.3 million votes. So Jack isn't wrong, though it's an oversimplification to say California decided it, according to some online commentators.

Snopes had this to say: "One could, for example, arbitrarily remove the states of New York and Massachusetts from the vote count, docking Clinton roughly 2.6 million votes (and wiping out her popular vote win). Or one could similarly claim that Trump's electoral vote victory "came entirely from Texas," since if Clinton had taken the Lone Star state (and its 38 electoral votes), she would also have won the overall election."

I also received a comment from my father-in-law, Rick Thurston, saying:

"The electoral college does give voters in smaller states a bigger voice than voters in larger states. But that is also how our government works. The House of Representatives gives individuals somewhat equal voices, but the Senate gives states equal voices independent of population. Obviously the smaller states have a much greater voice in the Senate. I believe most think this is a good system. I do like the idea of the National Popular Vote. Why should each state determine how they split their electoral votes in a national election?"

More food for thought. Thanks for reading and responding.

I love to hear from the readers, so contact me with your questions, comments, observations and memories from days gone by in the Rockland area. Email me at ddunkle@villagesoup.com or snail mail letters to the Editor, 91 Camden Street, Suite 403, Rockland, Me 04841.

Daniel Dunkle is editor of The Courier-Gazette. He lives in Rockland with his wife, Christine, two children and two cats. Follow him on Twitter @DanDunkle.

 

Comments (1)
Posted by: Mary A McKeever | Jan 21, 2017 13:57

Perhaps a repeal of the electoral college and replace with total popular vote Nation wide.Debate?



If you wish to comment, please login.