There's just one problem with this argument: It's nonsense.
Trump only won the election fair and square if you have no idea what either "fair" or "square" means.
This
is not simply liberal sour grapes, though I'm sure many Trump
supporters and self-defining "open-minded" liberals will characterize it
as such.
First off, once all of the votes are tabulated, it appears that Democratic nominee
Hillary Clinton will beat Trump in the popular vote — the only vote that should count —
by about 2 million votes.
Sadly,
none of these votes truly matter due to our ridiculous Electoral
College system, which we're the only country on Earth to employ.
Of
course, many Trump supporters will cry out against this by claiming
that Trump would've campaigned differently had it been the popular vote
that counted.
Maybe, but, obviously, Clinton would've done so as
well, and probably could've racked up even more votes in cities,
especially those in states that she didn't bother to campaign in because
the Electoral College gives such an inordinate advantage to rural
areas.
Generally, voter turnout tends to be considerably lower in
solidly Democratic or Republican-leaning bastions, such as New York and
California, where approximately 52.4 percent and 53.8 percent of
eligible voters turned out, respectively, or Texas (51.1 percent) and
Oklahoma (52.1 percent) (statistics from
The Election Project).
More
competitive states like Florida (65.1 percent), Ohio (64.5 percent) and
New Hampshire (70.3 percent) tend to have much higher participation
rates — a definite argument against the Electoral College. (In fact, the
U.S. recently ranked
31st out of 35 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations when it came to voter participation.)
So
while Trump would've stood to garner more votes in conservative states
if the Electoral College didn't exist, given that Clinton's lead in big
blue states was often bigger than Trump's in big red states, the overall
likelihood is that a straight popular vote would've increased Clinton's
popular vote lead.
Even Trump himself has acknowledged that the
Electoral College makes no sense. In 2012, he called it a "disaster for a
democracy."
More recently, he
told "60 Minutes" that he'd rather see a straight vote.
(Of
course, in typical Trump fashion, he followed that two days later with
praise for the very same institution, tweeting out, "The Electoral
College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the
smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!")
No
one can seriously argue that the Electoral College is not a severely
anti-democratic hindrance and that it should be abolished.
But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
There's
little doubt that Clinton's popular vote tally would've been millions
more had it not been for several other factors: the Supreme Court's
ruling in Shelby v. Holder, which allowed
868 polling stations to close throughout the South; voter ID laws that are especially cumbersome to the poor; the purging of voter rolls based on
cross-checking
and the elimination of convicts' voting rights, even after they've
served their time; WikiLeaks dumps; excessive voting lines intended to
suppress votes (in 2012, for instance, the
average wait time
across Florida was 45 minutes); and the shenanigans of one James B.
Comey, FBI director. (Does anyone doubt that this last one alone was
enough to swing the election?)
Many liberals — in typical "blame
ourselves" fashion — have consistently repeated the notion that Clinton
lost because she didn't inspire enough people to come out and vote. And
there are indeed legitimate complaints to be logged in that regard.
After all, she's likely to finish with about 2 million or so less votes
than Obama did in 2012.
But how many votes would Obama have
received if he had been forced to contend with the FBI, WikiLeaks,
Russian hackers and a media set on promoting a nonsensical false
equivalency for the purpose of improving ratings?
The truth is
that our so-called democracy is more of pseudo-democracy, with
ridiculously gerrymandered districts, large-scale voter suppression
tactics, unequal representation, an Electoral College system that
disregards the popular will of the people, and fake news sources that
play to echo chambers and voter ignorance.
And although Trump
succeeded without it, the ability of rich donors and corporations to
pour money into elections should not be discounted either; nor should
the corruption caused by the close association of Congress and K Street —
both of which Sen.
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others have rightfully decried.
Yes,
for all the things you can say about this election and our system in
general, the one thing you can't say is that it operates in a manner
which is "fair and square." Unless by "square" you mean that it squares
with the wishes of the Republican leadership.
The question then remains: What can be done?
I've
heard many liberals argue that nothing can be done — that the peaceful
transfer of power and the continuity of government are the most
important aspects of our democracy. But they're wrong. The most
important aspect of our democracy is the democracy part: the voting. And
if we don't protect that — if we don't fight for it — the rest isn't
worth much.
It now appears that change will not come through the
Supreme Court. And the prospect of passing a constitutional amendment to
fix the Electoral College and the other voting issues I've enumerated
is extremely unlikely without a wide-scale national movement. The same
is true for the
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
We
need that type of movement. We need protests. We need criticism. We
need emails and phone calls to members of Congress. We need a news media
that is responsible and that addresses these issues on a daily basis.
We need to show our dismay in a very public way.
Ordinarily — in
the past — I would've always had the greatest respect for the office of
the president.
Even presidents I did not agree with, I would've treated
with respect. I would've never, if in their presence, have considered
turning my back on them or not addressing them as "Mr. President."
But
that's exactly what I think we should now do.
Any American who objects
not only to the things that Trump represents, but to the fact that our
democratic institutions have largely been undermined, should refuse to
show this president — and any president who does not win the popular
vote, for that matter — any respect. Because, while we must accept the
reality that he is in fact our president now, there is no rule that says
we must revere him.
That is how you make your voice heard.
This does not mean that you should not pay your taxes (which support our military) or that you should disobey the rule of law.
But
it does mean that you should turn your back on the president; that you
should refuse to stand when he enters a room; and that you should refuse
to call him "Mr. President."
It means that Democrats in
leadership should do everything they can to stop him from infringing on
the rights of our citizens, and that, in the Senate, they should refuse
to approve any Supreme Court justices and stop Republicans from getting
any of their projects passed — through protests, filibusters and other
procedural measures until election reform occurs.
It means that
members of the House should emulate their efforts of this past June and
engage in sit-ins and other demonstrations to bring Republicans to the
table.
Of course, such tactics would bear consequences. The
Democrats would be accused of undermining the very republic that they
seek to defend.
But it must be kept in mind that these types of
things have already been occurring. Our Congress is remarkably
inefficient, and
Republicans have set plenty of precedent when it comes
to obstruction, making it a general policy to strike down or delay
practically every reasonable attempt at legislation and every
appointment attempted by President Obama, including refusing to take a
vote in the Senate on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, whom many
Republicans had previously praised.
Despite Republicans'
insistence that Trump should be given a chance, they never gave Obama
much of one, did they? Whatever he achieved, he achieved despite them,
not because of any real willingness to cooperate.
Still, in order
for such an effort to succeed, it would have to be supported by the
public — if not a majority, at least a vocal minority. Organize under
hashtags like #InaugurationProtest, but keep in mind that hashtags and
Facebook posts alone won't do it.
You need to show up.
We
need not only a massive protest on Inauguration Day, but regularly
scheduled protests outside of the White House and the Capitol. We need a
movement, not just the dressings of one. It was large-scale movements
that gave us women's suffrage, the Civil Rights Law and gay marriage.
We need to make our representatives hear the clarion call in no uncertain terms.
Maybe then they'll get the message that every vote should count and every person should count.
Rosenfeld
is an educator and historian who has done work for Scribner, Macmillan
and Newsweek and contributes frequently to The Hill.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.
