Sanders, Clinton, & The Electoral College

Sanders, Clinton, & The Electoral College


There are a couple of petitions circling around the internet attempting to gain enough signatures to force the electoral college to elect either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton when they cast their ballots later in December. As big of a Bernie Sanders supporter that I was and am (I am still super proud that I cast my vote for him in the primary election), I do not support these petitions.

There is an argument that could be made that since Hillary won the popular vote by about 2.2 million, she should be the president of the United States of America. This argument is not a bad one at all (I sort of agree with it to a certain extent) and I would much rather have a President Clinton, as crooked as she is, than a President Trump, who is far more crooked (the man admitted to not paying his taxes for crying out loud). However, I was able to do what many of Hillary’s starkest supporters were not able to do: I accepted the fact that Donald Trump will be the 45th President. I didn’t make excuse like “Jill Stein and her supporters screwed her over” (because she earned less that 0.2% of the vote and it is factually incorrect). Perhaps if the DNC didn’t hold closed primaries and didn’t screw Bernie over, we would probably not be in the shitty situation we are currently in. By I ain’t living with the ghost! Why dwell on the past?

The Electoral College should not elect Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders when they vote later this month because neither of them won the majority of the electors. History lesson! The Electoral College was created for two reasons:

1. Communication hadn’t peeked yet in the 1700s and it was easier and more feasible to count votes and cast them by region rather than count each individual vote.

2. Our founding fathers didn’t want big cities (such as Philadelphia or New York) to run everything politically.

With that being said, in the twenty-first century communication has evolved a little since then, making reason #1 obsolete. Also, to live in a true democracy, we should be one person, one vote, regardless of whether or not the one casting the vote lives in a big city or out in the sticks. That takes out #2. So what other reason do we still have the Electoral College? Because it has always been there! Is it undemocratic? Sure, but it is tradition and that will remain to be the Republican’s reasoning for keeping it in place. Well I say, screw your tradition! It is undemocratic and if we wish to live in a democratic society (even though we technically live in a republic), we must do away with systems of super delegates and electors based solely on the grounds that it is undemocratic. One person, one vote…that is democratic.

So while I am in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, I think that the electors should carry on with their votes for Donald Trump in this election. The reason? Because it wasn’t abolished for the election. You don’t get to change the rules after the fact because you didn’t like the outcome. It is what it is. But allow me to propose a few questions: Why now are the Democrats railing against the Electoral College? Why didn’t they do it sooner? If Hillary Clinton had won the Electoral College vote, would they be pushing to abolish the Electoral College so hard? Let me rephrase that. If Hillary Clinton had won the Electoral College vote but Donald Trump won the popular vote, would they really want to abolish the Electoral College? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that Democrats are finally on the right side of this issue, but the reasons behind it throws up a series of red flags for me. Could it be because it is what best fits their narrative? Probably.

Cover Image Credit:

Popular Right Now

I'm The Girl Without A 'Friend Group'

And here's why I'm OK with it


Little things remind me all the time.

For example, I'll be sitting in the lounge with the people on my floor, just talking about how everyone's days went. Someone will turn to someone else and ask something along the lines of, "When are we going to so-and-so's place tonight?" Sometimes it'll even be, "Are you ready to go to so-and-so's place now? Okay, we'll see you later, Taylor!"

It's little things like that, little things that remind me I don't have a "friend group." And it's been like that forever. I don't have the same people to keep me company 24 hours of the day, the same people to do absolutely everything with, and the same people to cling to like glue. I don't have a whole cast of characters to entertain me and care for me and support me. Sometimes, especially when it feels obvious to me, not having a "friend group" makes me feel like a waste of space. If I don't have more friends than I can count, what's the point in trying to make friends at all?

I can tell you that there is a point. As a matter of fact, just because I don't have a close-knit clique doesn't mean I don't have any friends. The friends I have come from all different walks of life, some are from my town back home and some are from across the country. I've known some of my friends for years, and others I've only known for a few months. It doesn't really matter where they come from, though. What matters is that the friends I have all entertain me, care for me, and support me. Just because I'm not in that "friend group" with all of them together doesn't mean that we can't be friends to each other.

Still, I hate avoiding sticking myself in a box, and I'm not afraid to seek out friendships. I've noticed that a lot of the people I see who consider themselves to be in a "friend group" don't really venture outside the pack very often. I've never had a pack to venture outside of, so I don't mind reaching out to new people whenever.

I'm not going to lie, when I hear people talking about all the fun they're going to have with their "friend group" over the weekend, part of me wishes I could be included in something like that. I do sometimes want to have the personality type that allows me to mesh perfectly into a clique. I couldn't tell you what it is about me, but there is some part of me that just happens to function better one-on-one with people.

I hated it all my life up until very recently, and that's because I've finally learned that not having a "friend group" is never going to be the same as not having friends.

SEE ALSO: To The Girls Who Float Between Friend Groups

Cover Image Credit:

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Pete Buttigieg Is On Everybody's Radar Now, But Can Mayor Pete Really Become President Pete?

Charisma, polyglot and success in reviving a Midwestern city make him a viable candidate for president. But will this hold?


At the time of writing this, at least 18 people are vying for the Democratic Party nomination to challenge Donald Trump during the Presidential election in 2020. This includes some heavyweights, such as Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Kamala Harris and Senator Cory Booker. There are also fringe candidates, like Andrew Yang. Then there are the formerly fringe candidates. One person fits that bill: Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

Pete Buttigieg has erupted as a potential candidate for the Presidency. He recently took 9% of a recent poll in Iowa, the state that begins the general election season. The question is this: why has he gained so much traction? There are several potential reasons.

First, Mayor Pete has, at least compared to Trump, significant governmental experience as the mayor of South Bend. He has been mayor since 2011. He began his time in office at the age of 29 and has since been re-elected with 80% of the vote in 2015. His success in the city has shown: the city experienced significant growth following a population decline between 2000-2010.

The Mayor has also spearheaded some rebirth projects in the city, including converting the old Studebaker plant in town into a tech hub, conversion of the city streets downtown, and millions of dollars of private investment into the city. As a result, Mayor Pete can tout his success here as examples of why he could be president.

Other supporters claim that he is immensely talented and intelligent (though I do not like this reasoning). Mayor Pete was a Rhodes Scholar after attending Harvard. He knows myriad languages, including Norwegian. He is well-acquainted with various philosophies, including that of well-known intellectual Antonio Gramsci, whom his father has written on.

Though this line of thinking is flawed (I mean, Julian Castro attended Stanford, Cory Booker was also a Rhodes Scholar and Elizabeth Warren lectured at Harvard Law School), it is easy to see WHY he resonates: when compared to the President, Pete is levels above him.

Finally, a lot of what he says resonates with people. He speaks about his faith with fervor and honesty, something I appreciate greatly. He talks about the virtues of progressive politics and supporting policies like universal healthcare, labor unionism, combating climate change among other policies. His youth ideals combined are valued by many.

However, Pete still has his critics. Concerns about the gentrification of the city, wiretapping, and targeting of vacant properties that led to accusations of targeting of minorities in the city are what concerns many people. There were also previous issues with the police chief in the town, who recorded conversations, and who he demoted, which raised concerns for racial bias.

Whether or not this affects the primary at all is anyone's guess. However, he has momentum. Maybe Mayor Pete will become President Pete someday.

Related Content

Facebook Comments