NY Times Provides Infantile Analysis Of Trump's Electoral College Victory

Earlier this week, the NY Times had a piece that, in the print edition, was titled "How To Explain Split Between Popular Vote And Electoral College". The piece explored three possibilities. First it looked at a regional bias noting that Clinton won an overwhelming victory in California but that was offset by Trump's margins in what the Times calls "Appalaciafornia", the states of  West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota. Clinton won the remainder of the country by a two point margin. The authors cite an argument in favor of the Electoral College as the fact that it doesn't reward regionalism in the sense that racking up huge victories in particular areas of the country just means you end up with a lot of "wasted" votes. They say that Clinton's big win in California is offset by Trump's huge win in Appalachiafornia". From this they some reach the conclusion that regionalism isn't a factor in explaining the large difference between the results of the popular vote and the Electoral College. To my mind, however, the fact that you win Wyoming by 60% doesn't really offset the fact that you lost California by 20%. The number of votes between the two can't be compared.

Next the article takes on what's called the "small state bias" - that small states have disproportionate power in the Electoral College. They summarily dismiss this argument by saying Clinton won a lot of small states and Trump won a number of big states. Ergo, no problem. This kind of argument seems a little basic to me but it is hard to argue with.

Finally they take on the argument that the battleground states we demographically more inclined toward Trump. To quote, "Most of the traditional battleground states are much whiter, less educated and particularly less Hispanic than the rest of the country. But the demographics alone don’t quite do justice to Mr. Trump’s victory in the Electoral College. In the end, he won the battleground states by just a one-point margin — but claimed three-fourths of their Electoral College votes. He won four of the five closest states, winning 75 of 79 votes at stake." Their conclusion from this: "Mr. Trump had some very good luck." Thanks for that incisive analysis.

From here the article veers into the more bizarre, discussing how the accidents of history could have changed the outcome of this election. If Congress had agreed to Michigan's claim on what is now the city of Toledo way back in 1837, Clinton would have won Michigan. If the Florida Panhandle had just been allowed to join Alabama like it always wanted to, Clinton would have won Florida. The arguments here are infantile. Their conclusion: "The point is that the main bias of the Electoral College isn’t against big states or regionalism; it’s just toward the big battleground states. If they break overwhelmingly one way, that’s who wins. This is not exactly a high-minded Hamiltonian argument. There aren’t many justifications for letting a few close states decide a close national election. But that’s basically what the system does, and there’s nothing about those states that ensures they provide a representative outcome."

It is incredible that an article this silly and irrelevant could be written. There is no discussion of the concept of "one man, one vote". There is no mention that this is the second time in 15 years that the popular vote and the Electoral College have diverged so badly that the President did not in the popular vote, after only happening a couple of times in the prior 200 years. Thankfully, they do at least note that this by far and away the biggest divergence in history. But to examine this issue and not even discuss the divergence between urban and rural areas, both within state and across the country, and its impact on this election just shows willful blindness. As urban centers continue to grow and rural areas continue to lose population, we will continue to see situations where the popular vote winner does not win the presidency. The effect of that continually happening will only further erode faith in democracy. We are truly done for if this is the best level of analysis we can get from a major newspaper.