How the Electoral College kept four California counties from dictating to the entire nation! by Miguel A. Faria, MD

Exclusive for
Article Type: 
Published Date: 
Tuesday, January 3, 2017

As Ronald Reagan used to say, when repeatedly correcting misstatements, “here we go again!” And yes, I repeatedly hear the United States of America referred to as a democracy by both parroting ignorants as well as those who know or should know better. Just recently a letter to the editor in my local paper argued that the Electoral College (EC) is not a good system because, “in a true democracy every vote should count and the candidate who gets the most votes should win.” Attempting logic with an Aristotelian syllogism, the writer continued, “Two of the last three men elected president were runners-up in popular votes in their initial elections. This indicates either the system is flawed or that the apportionment of electors is inequitable.”

A democracy or a republic?The letter writer is dead wrong: First, the Founding Fathers created for us a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, and they, almost to a man, abhorred the idea of framing a “true [or mass] democracy” for the emerging United States. A democracy for them was the capricious and irresponsible rule of the mob. Second, it was the letter writer’s attempted syllogism that erred not the Electoral College. The EC system is neither “flawed,” nor “inequitable,” as he claimed, but as we shall see it worked as it was intended by the Founders and the legislators who subsequently updated this portion of the U.S. Constitution.

The letter writer concluded with “It is time to re-examine the Electoral College and move on into the 21st century and beyond” — a Democrat’s cliché indeed, which brings us to another sophistry, and that is the claim that the EC is outmoded. The fact remains the Electoral College remains timeless because it allows all areas of the country to be fairly represented in 2016 Electoral Collegepresidential elections, preventing several heavily populated clusters of urban areas from dominating presidential elections. And while it is true that the states where the race is close may decide the election, that is not necessarily a bad thing when the country is polarized as it is, and those swing states, less committed to party or ideology, deliberate for the best candidate of either party and preserve a political balance. And despite the empty claim to the contrary, there is no evidence that citizens vote less in states where a particular candidate is heavily favored to win.

Consider the situation in California, ironically described by a foreign news agency, Arutz Sheva, in a brief report entitled, “Popular Vote: One State Does Not Speak for the Nation”:

Indeed, Clinton did win more votes across the United States by the large margin of 2.8 million. Trump garnered close to 63 million votes, while Clinton won nearly 65.8 million. However, here’s the rub: The numbers show that this entire lead, and then some, came from only one state: California. In fact, most remarkably, the city of Los Angeles alone gave Clinton 1.69 million votes more than it gave Trump. The Golden State, long noted for its more progressive and liberal tendencies than the rest of the Union, voted overwhelmingly for Hilary Clinton. She received 61.73% of the vote there, compared to just a smidgeon over half that for Trump – 31.62%. In real numbers, slightly more than 4.48 million Californians voted for Trump, while a whopping 8.75 million-plus people voted there for Clinton. In the other 49 states, Trump actually won the popular vote by a significant 1.4 million margin. In fact, some bemusedly say that California is practically a country unto itself...

 Indeed, California has become a country unto itself, way off the mainstream and out in the left political field. Why would left-wing Californians have the right to dictate what the rest of the country can and can’t do, under what logic, under what political philosophy?

And we may be judging Californians in general too harshly. In fact, as Arutz Sheva reports, most of California actually preserved its political acumen; it was only four cities and counties in California that provided that avalanche of votes for Crooked Hillary that made all the difference in the popular vote:

Specifically, Alameda County gave Clinton 418,000 more votes, Santa Clara gave her 367,000 more, and the city of San Francisco provided a margin of 308,000. Together with the 1.69 million of Los Angeles, these four alone gave Clinton nearly 2.8 million more votes – almost precisely the margin by which she won the national vote!

And that is the gist of the much-touted popular vote: Four counties in California, left-wing counties out of the mainstream of American society, provided that margin of the popular vote for Crooked Hillary. Consider that San Francisco and Los Angeles are the major sources of health problems in the state of California:  

dirty syringes wash up on beach in CaliforniaContaminated hypodermic needles now washing up on California beaches by the hundreds, presumably discarded by unknown entities and very likely drug addicts, who commonly use insulin syringes and hypodermic needles for drug use. It is precisely those left-wing counties and cities, such as Orange County, Los Angeles County, and San Francisco  that attract vagrants, gangs, and drug addicts because they have become progressive, welfare sanctuaries loaded with filth, pollution, vagrancy and crime; the same counties that have become veritable threats to life and health upon the utter abandonment of cleanliness, hygiene, sanitation, and sanity! These are the counties that in the minds of Democrat stalwarts and critics of the Electoral College should have decided the election in Crooked Hillary’s favor and decide the direction the country should move in the 21st century!

Yes, the Electoral College preserved the sanity and probity of the entire nation and acted with deliberation and wisdom as it was intended by the Founders to preserve the Republic!

Written by Dr. Miguel Faria

Miguel A. Faria, M.D. is an Associate Editor in Chief and World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI). He is President of Haciendapublishing, a retired neurosurgeon, and the author of  Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is 

This article may be cited as: Faria MA. How the Electoral College kept four California counties from dictating to the entire nation!, January 3, 2017 Available from:

A version of this article also appeared in GOPUSA January 3, 2017

Read the follow up to this article here.

Copyright ©2017  Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD

Your rating: None Average: 5 (8 votes)
Comments on this post

When Democrats disregard inconvenient popular vote!

"The desire of the majority was overturned by an activist Supreme Court judge legislating from the bench, as the left is apt to do. Isn't it funny how the left didn't mind when the popular vote was ignored in that case?"....Dr. AB

Yep...The people know best, except when they don't.

Arrogance & ignorance!

From GOPUSA Forum (Jan 4, 2017)

Dante: Great article! The arrogance and ignorance of the progressives is amazing. Our founding fathers were great men, the progressive leaders are not even mediocre.

June Winnop-Steiger: This is why we in the northern end of California have voted to become a separate state, the State of Jefferson. Our votes do not count, our tax money is not spent here and our jobs have disappeared. All of our resources have been stolen by state and federal government.

cgretired: I was stationed in Eureka for a total of almost 10 years on two separate assignments. Even then, 1975 to 1979 then 1982 to 1986, there was a lot of talk about splitting California into two separate states, splitting northern CA from southern CA. The protesting snowflakes need to read this [article], and read it slowly so it sinks in.

mikeb: We wouldn’t hear about any of this if HRC had won.
 Once again: we are called the UNITED STATES.Every fours years STATES vote for POTUS. The residents in each state determine by their votes who will carry that state. Nobody was disenfranchised. Hillary carried every state she won like CA and NY and got every single one of their electoral votes. If she had won but, say, Trump had gotten nearly 3 million more total votes from TX, I’d still say the system worked. Only millennial whiners bixch about this.

conservative4us: Subtract LA County and the CITY of New York and Trump wins the popular vote by 500K... That says a lot.

cnkiv: While all this is interesting, as a result of the Liberal Socialist Democratic Party’s control over election boards in most metropolitan areas, and their almost maniacal rejection of voter ID and citizenship proof, experts have accurately used statistics that something between 3 million and 5 million illegal aliens voted in the last election. This and the other Democrat standbys of dead people voting, voting in multiple districts, and absentee ballot fraud actually suggest that were these votes thrown out as they should be, Trump won in a Landslide both in the popular and electoral vote. How is that the Federal government, who mandated extensive documentation requirements to the States several years ago for drivers licenses to be issued under their “Real ID” program can not apply these same reasonable standards to voting. The Democrats claim that ID requirements discriminate just does not hold water when you realize that ID is required for almost any important functions including Check cashing, Bank accounts, Welfare, Food Stamps, Flying airlines. It’s long past time that the most cherished right in our republic be protected from fraud and cynical Liberal politicians, at least as well as driving or obtaining an ID (Free in most states) be applied to voting; our most cherished Constitutional Right.

Srini Varadarajan: One more proof as to wisdom of Founders in rejecting copy of Whitehall-system of “Mum Britain” — reinforced by 2015 happenings in our northern neighbour, which has an actual copy of it; two Provinces in collusion (one with 26% of total population which oft raises “separation bogie” — albeit it’s quite unviable sans Ottawa — and the other with 37%) dictate to the rest of the country, and do considerable wreckage (as happened last year)! And on “direct popular vote” — even Mum Britain considered it unviable when it had only 6.4 million people, why would anyone think it workable in a country with 50 times that population (and 40 times the area of Britain)?

Tremor1: The whinny losers that want to end the Electoral College are a bunch of hypocrites. They only want true democracy or majority rule when it suits them. They applauded the many propositions passed in California and other states overturned by the courts that they disagreed with, but claim “settled law” on those that they want. Some of the more recent ones were Prop 8 in CA that banned same sex marriage and Arizona’s SB 1070, the 2010 law regulating unlawful immigrants that was struck down (but only in part) by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1994 CA passed Prop 187 that sought to make immigrants unlawfully present in California ineligible for various public health, public social, and public education services. Again, a Federal court declared it unconstitutional.

Dido: Had Hillary won the election without the popular vote, the socialist Democrats would have been praising the EC to the limits of idolatry and sycophancy and calling the popular vote the vote of the uneducated, white trailer trash!

Discus_aoipS7GLSD: Dr. Faria is great. What a clear and eloquent explanation of how important it is that we keep the Electoral College.

joe23006: The phrase, “in order to form a more perfect government,” is very telling of the founding fathers in that they realized there was no ‘perfect’ government; what they did was build in certain checks and balances to thwart either the mob rule of pure democracy or the despotism of a single individual. The country is not made up of individuals but of a federation of sovereign states, The(se) United States! Just over one hundred years ago the direct election of Senators weakened the power of the states and their interests to the advantage of one political party, blue states outnumbering red. Now the target is the Electoral College which still evens the playing field and infuriates liberals. Eight years has shown us a glimpse of that frightening scenario.

Split California in two separate states?

MyronJPoltroonian: “As goes California, so goes the nation”; we’ve all heard that one. Right? Well, my observation is that California doesn’t have so much of a “North/South” problem, as it does an “East/West” problem. Just look at a map of the election results time after time, on a county by county basis, to see what I mean. San Francisco and Los Angeles decide our fate, which direction we go, et cetera. (As it is in almost any other state I can think of.) I, by the way, believe I-5 should be the dividing line. Unfortunately, many of the voters in the two major California “Metropoles” typify what is sadly missing in our country today, an understanding of the very principles our founders laid down for us, and, more importantly, their reasons why. How many of these so-called “Enlightened Ones” know, understand, or, even care why we have an “Electoral College”? They only think (and I use that term loosely) that a “Tyranny of the Majority” happens if the Republicans are in charge. They won’t even see the similarities between their actions to stifle dissent and impose their oh so enlightened mandates “For the ‘good of the people’ ” as compared to what they rail against from “the ‘other’ side”. You cannot say anything that would offend anyone. Unless, of course, that offense is committed against a “Non-Protected Class”. Then you may offend and call names to your little “Progressive”, black-hearted content. 

ggpa63: I would like to see the electoral college changed from total state results to congressional district results. Each congressional district would get one electoral college vote and the candidate that wins the district wins the vote. The two electoral votes attributed to the two senate seats for every state would be based on the winner of the total state popular vote. That gets the election down to closes contact with the voter – U.S. Congressional districts. I live in West Michigan. Generally my vote doesn’t count for president because Detroit is large enough to over ride the rest of the votes in the state. If my vote helped determine the winner in my congressional district that seems like a better system.

Riftsrunner: Not a good idea. Congressional districts are redrawn every 10 years, usually with the emphasis placed on creating an easier chance for the party that is currently in power to maintain or increase its numbers. So it is a good chance if the Republicans drew the lines, it is very likely that each district will get a Republican result, even though there may be a Democratic majority in that state (and vice versa). I would prefer a majority of the state takes all or a pro-rated version (like Maine or Nebraska) over your district based allocation.

Dido: With all due respect to riftsrunner, I disagree with “a pro-rated version (like Maine or Nebraska) over your district based allocation”— proportional representation. True, changing to a proportional representation can be accomplished easily by the legislation of the states as happened in Nebraska and Maine. But according to the article cited by Dr. Faria that also is not a good idea, because those states lose representation in the federal system. It is better for the state to cast all the votes for the one winning candidate. He writes: “Proportional representation with the fractional casting of a state’s Electoral College votes would drastically dilute the voting strength of the individual state that foolishly adopts it, making that state irrelevant in a nationwide presidential contest. If this proposal were to be uniformly adopted by the nation either by state choice or by constitutional amendment, it would defeat the purpose for which the Electoral College was wisely created by the framers.” 
I believe proportional representation is a bad idea also. Let’s not fix what does not need fixing!

Kbuzz1: Dido, I can’t quite agree with you, but for only one reason – California. 55 Electoral votes all go Democrat. With only 270 needed to win, 55 becomes a large number to overcome for any GOP candidate right out of the gate. 7 million Repubs with no voice. The number of illegals, a couple of million and guess which way they vote (which is illegal but the California Government makes no effort to stop that). A modification to the system is necessary. Perhaps to the winner, an automatic half of the electoral votes, and the remaining votes get divided proportionally. Instead of 55 votes with a Democrat win, get 28 votes automatically – of the remaining 27, Democrats won by 2/3 rds, get 18 more votes. 46 votes Democrat, 9 votes Republican. Any State with over 12 electoral votes would use this method.

Dido: Kbuzz1 it all depends on what we disagree on! If we refer to GOP advantage for now, you may be correct, but only if large states are arbitrarily subjected to proportional representation (PR) . Despite Texas (2nd largest) that has 38 EC votes that would also had to be divided. But then the next largest states are either swing states, Florida (4th) that may return to the GOP; or Democratic, New York (3rd), and Illinois(5th). But as we go down to smaller states down to 12 EC vote, we begin to also affect GOP states as well. Arbitrarily stopping at 12 may be OK, but how legislators may arrive at that number would be highly contested as the realization sets in of large states been selected for losing voting power. But if we refer to what is best for the individual state taking the path of PR is foolish, especially if most other states do not dilute their electoral college voting power by following suit!

Kbuzz1: I can see that. The Problem is I am a CA resident. I would grasp at any straw that would lead to a common sense approach, and there is NONE in this state. It is not that this is a democrat state, it is in reality a democrat Controlled State. The only reason Obama would move here is that they would worship him. Criminals have rights, illegals have rights, and liberalism is an infestation that has run amuck...

Dido: Kbuzz1, G-d, I really sympathize with you, truly! I have many friends in Ca and they feel as you do. At least Dr Faria, it seems absolved the rest of California from the mayhem and insanity! My friends in Ca agree with you that Ca is a Democrat Controlled State and that the Criminals and the illegals have rights and benefits at the expense of the taxpayers. They also talked about the environmental mayhem and filth that we experienced when we visited there some years back. I dream that the California of Ronald Reagan would return one day!

MyronJPoltroonian, I’m not from California, but I don’t see how Hi 5 can be used as separation of Northern and Southern California. Can you explain? Is that in the works? The course of Hi 5 is north-south, more dividing like east from west of the state! I do think that splitting California and New York by consent and referenda of citizens of those two states, may be the solution to the California and New York polarization and to one population having to pay for the excesses of the other!

... Still, even if San Francisco went with the Northern part of California, It would be her turn to abide by the wishes of the rest and more sober and conservative northern state and not lose the pacific coast altogether. The division can be carried out at Carmel, north and south, not Hi 5, East and west. Let Clint Eastwood at Carmel preside over it and even Kbuzz1 may be happy with that arrangement!

GOPUSA has over 50 comments on this article, January 4, 2017

Leftist hypocrisy and let the wackos control US?

I couldn't agree with you more!  Throughout my life I have found that one cannot argue with ignorance— and it took a long time for me to realize that many people I thought educated and intelligent were the opposite.

Sadly, this country has a large ignorant population and the numbers are increasing— exactly what the liberal-progressives have striven for all along.

Trump will not doubt turn the country around—but with its growing ignorance, I wonder if what he achieves will dwindle back to liberalism if he is unable to correct this country's educational decline.

Sin embargo, Dear Amigo, a most happy and prosperous to you and your family. There is for once, great hope ahead.--- Don Horacio.
I find this a perfect example of leftist hypocrisy... God may help us, but I am not sure we necessarily need Him to right now. My true belief is He would rather stay out of it, if possible. The obsessed Democrats on this issue are imbeciles. Most of them have conceded a Trump win. The Electoral College has been around for over two centuries. The Democrats are not going to be able to change anything.

California is full of lefty loonies, and I have been there enough times to assure you that is not just a conservative talking point. They really are! I do not believe the majority of the nation cares to follow most of what they propose.

I find it ironic though. Proposition 8 to defeat gay marriage was surprisingly enough upheld by 51% of voters there. They did not want gay marriage. You can think whatever you like about it, but the majority population of California clearly did not want it by popular vote. Yet, guess what? The desire of the majority was overturned by an activist Supreme Court judge legislating from the bench, as the left is apt to do. Isn't it funny how the left didn't mind when the popular vote was ignored in that case? We know why the hypocrites didn't say anything, of course. Best Regards and Best Wishes for 2017, --- Dr. A.B.
Dr. Faria Replies: I agree with many points both of you make. As it regards Californians, let's remember that it is not the majority of Californians outside those 4 counties who are the extremists. The loonies and wackos who have hijacked and control the state are concentrated in those 4 counties, and they not only want to control California, but with the help of loonies elsewhere, they want to radicalize and control the nation!--- MAF