Win the vote but still lose? Behold America’s Electoral College

Combo image showing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris campaigning as the Nov. 5, 2024, US election approaches. (AFP photos)
Short Url
Updated 03 November 2024
Follow

Win the vote but still lose? Behold America’s Electoral College

  • What matters most in a US presidential election is who gets more than 270 of the 538 Electoral College votes, regardless of who gets the most popular votes
  • Because many states predictably lean Republican or Democratic, presidential candidates focus heavily on the handful of “swing” states on which the election will likely turn

WASHINGTON: When political outsider Donald Trump defied polls and expectations to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election, he described the victory as “beautiful.”
Not everyone saw it that way — considering that Democrat Clinton had received nearly three million more votes nationally than her Republican rival. Non-Americans were particularly perplexed that the second-highest vote-getter would be the one crowned president.
But Trump had done what the US system requires: win enough individual states, sometimes by very narrow margins, to surpass the 270 Electoral College votes necessary to win the White House.
Now, on the eve of the 2024 election showdown between Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris, the rules of this enigmatic and, to some, outmoded, system is coming back into focus.

The 538 members of the US Electoral College gather in their state’s respective capitals after the quadrennial presidential election to designate the winner.
A presidential candidate must obtain an absolute majority of the “electors” — or 270 of the 538 — to win.

The system originated with the US Constitution in 1787, establishing the rules for indirect, single-round presidential elections.
The country’s Founding Fathers saw the system as a compromise between direct presidential elections with universal suffrage, and an election by members of Congress — an approach rejected as insufficiently democratic.
Because many states predictably lean Republican or Democratic, presidential candidates focus heavily on the handful of “swing” states on which the election will likely turn — nearly ignoring some large states such as left-leaning California and right-leaning Texas.
Over the years, hundreds of amendments have been proposed to Congress in efforts to modify or abolish the Electoral College. None has succeeded.
Trump’s 2016 victory rekindled debate. And if the 2024 race is the nail-biter that most polls predict, the Electoral College will surely return to the spotlight.

Who are the electors?

Most are local elected officials or party leaders, but their names do not appear on ballots.
Each state has as many electors as it has members in the US House of Representatives (a number dependent on the state’s population), plus the Senate (two in every state, regardless of size).
California, for example, has 54 electors; Texas has 40; and sparsely populated Alaska, Delaware, Vermont and Wyoming have only three each.
The US capital city, Washington, also gets three electors, despite having no voting members in Congress.
The Constitution leaves it to states to decide how their electors’ votes should be cast. In every state but two (Nebraska and Maine, which award some electors by congressional district), the candidate winning the most votes theoretically is allotted all that state’s electors.

How do electors vote?

In November 2016, Trump won 306 electoral votes, well more than the 270 needed.
The extraordinary situation of losing the popular vote but winning the White House was not unprecedented.
Five presidents have risen to the office this way, the first being John Quincy Adams in 1824.
More recently, the 2000 election resulted in an epic Florida entanglement between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore.
Gore won nearly 500,000 more votes nationwide, but when Florida — ultimately following a US Supreme Court intervention — was awarded to Bush, it pushed his Electoral College total to 271 and a hair’s-breadth victory.

Nothing in the Constitution obliges electors to vote one way or another.
If some states required them to respect the popular vote and they failed to do so, they were subjected to a simple fine. But in July 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that states could impose punishments on such “faithless electors.”
To date, faithless electors have never determined a US election outcome.

When do electors vote?

Electors will gather in their state capitals on December 17 and cast votes for president and vice president. US law states they “meet and cast their vote on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday in December.”
On January 6, 2025, Congress will convene to certify the winner — a nervously watched event this cycle, four years after a mob of Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol attempting to block certification.
But there is a difference. Last time, it was Republican vice president Mike Pence who, as president of the Senate, was responsible for overseeing the certification. Defying heavy pressure from Trump and the mob, he certified Biden’s victory.
This time, the president of the Senate — overseeing what normally would be the pro forma certification — will be none other than today’s vice president: Kamala Harris.
On January 20, the new president is to be sworn in.
 


Man charged with hate crime in Boulder attack on ‘Zionist people’ appears in US federal court

Updated 5 sec ago
Follow

Man charged with hate crime in Boulder attack on ‘Zionist people’ appears in US federal court

  • Mohamed Sabry Soliman was arrested on June 1 for throwing Molotov cocktails at demonstrators in Boulder, Colorado
  • The demonstrators were raising awareness of Israeli hostages being held by Hamas militants in Gaza

DENVER: A man who told investigators he was driven by a desire “to kill all Zionist people” when he threw Molotov cocktails at demonstrators raising awareness of Israeli hostages appeared briefly in federal court for the first time Friday to face a hate crime charge.
Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, sat in the jury box in a Denver courtroom handcuffed and dressed in a green jail uniform, a US Marshal sitting in the row behind him. Listening to the proceedings in Arabic through an interpreter, he answered “yes” and “I understand” in Arabic as Magistrate Judge Timothy P. O’Hara explained his rights.
Before the brief hearing started, Soliman mostly looked away from the crowded gallery, but after the proceedings he nodded and smiled as his lawyers spoke to him.
A conviction on a hate crime charge typically carries a penalty of no more than 10 years in prison, but Assistant US Attorney Melissa Hindman said if the crime involves an attempted killing, the sentence can be as long as life in prison.
Soliman is represented by public defenders who do not comment on their cases to the media. He is scheduled to appear in federal court again June 18 for a hearing in which federal prosecutors will be asked to show they have enough evidence to prosecute Soliman. He’ll face a similar hearing in state court July 15.
He is accused in Sunday’s attack on the weekly demonstration in Boulder, which investigators say he planned for a year. The victims include 15 people and a dog. He has also been charged in state court in Boulder with attempted murder and assault counts as well as counts related to the 18 Molotov cocktails police say he carried to the demonstration.
Investigators say Soliman told them he had intended to kill all of the roughly 20 participants at the weekly demonstration on Boulder’s popular Pearl Street pedestrian mall, but he threw just two of his 18 Molotov cocktails while yelling “Free Palestine.” Soliman told investigators he tried to buy a gun but was not able to because he was not a “legal citizen.”
Federal authorities say Soliman, an Egyptian national, has been living in the US illegally.
Soliman did not carry out his full plan “because he got scared and had never hurt anyone before,” police wrote in an arrest affidavit.
Not all of the victims were physically injured. Some of them are considered victims because they were in the area and could potentially have been hurt in the attack, 20th Judicial District Michael Dougherty said Thursday.
Three victims remained in the hospital Friday, UCHealth University of Colorado Hospital spokesperson Dan Weaver said.
The dog was among the injured, which resulted in an animal cruelty charge being filed against Soliman, Dougherty said.
Soliman told investigators that he waited until after his daughter graduated from school before launching the attack, according to court documents.
Federal authorities want to deport Soliman’s wife and their five children, who range from 4 to 17 years old, but a judge issued an order Wednesday halting deportation proceedings until a lawsuit challenging their deportation can be considered. Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has described their claims as “absurd” and “an attempt to delay justice.”
US immigration officials took Soliman’s wife and children into custody Tuesday. They are being held at a family immigration detention center in Texas.
According to a court document filed Friday by the family’s lawyers, law enforcement had arranged for Soliman’s wife and children to stay in a hotel while their home was searched following the attack. After two nights, Homeland Security Investigations agents told the family they had to move to another hotel for their safety and were then met by between 10 and 20 plainclothes officers who took them into custody, the filing said.
According to the document, one of them allegedly told Soliman’s wife, “You have to pay for the consequences of what you did.”


Abrego Garcia, mistakenly deported, is returned to US to face migrant-smuggling charges

Updated 13 min 21 sec ago
Follow

Abrego Garcia, mistakenly deported, is returned to US to face migrant-smuggling charges

  • Lawyer calls charges ‘fantastical,’ questions witness credibility
  • Case highlights tensions between Trump administration and judiciary

WASHINGTON: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man mistakenly deported from Maryland to El Salvador by the Trump administration, was flown back to the United States to face criminal charges of transporting illegal immigrants within the US, Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Friday.
Abrego Garcia’s return marked an inflection point in a case seized on by critics of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown as a sign that the administration was disregarding civil liberties in its push to step up deportations.
Abrego Garcia — a 29-year-old Salvadoran whose wife and young child in Maryland are US citizens — appeared in federal court in Nashville on Friday evening.
His arraignment was set for June 13, when he will enter a plea, according to local media reports. Until then, he will remain in federal custody.
If convicted, he would be deported to El Salvador after serving his sentence, Bondi said. The Trump administration has said Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang, an accusation that his lawyers deny.
Officials on Friday portrayed the indictment of Abrego Garcia by a federal grand jury in Tennessee as vindication of their approach to immigration enforcement.
“The man has a horrible past, and I could see a decision being made, bring him back, show everybody how horrible this guy is,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, adding that it was the Justice Department that decided to bring Abrego Garcia back.
According to the indictment, Abrego Garcia worked with at least five co-conspirators as part of a smuggling ring to bring immigrants to the United States illegally, then transport them from the US-Mexico border to destinations in the country.
Abrego Garcia often picked up migrants in Houston, making more than 100 trips between Texas and Maryland between 2016 and 2025, the indictment alleges.
It also accuses Abrego Garcia of transporting firearms and drugs. According to the indictment, one of Abrego Garcia’s co-conspirators belonging to the same ring was involved in the transportation of migrants whose tractor trailer overturned in Mexico in 2021, resulting in 50 deaths.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, called the criminal charges “fantastical” and a “kitchen sink” of allegations.
“This is all based on the statements of individuals who are currently either facing prosecution or in federal prison,” he said. “I want to know what they offered those people.”
The indictment also led to a high-level resignation in the federal prosecutor’s office in Nashville, with news that Ben Schrader, chief of the criminal division for the Middle District of Tennessee, had resigned in protest.
A 15-year veteran of the US Attorney’s Office, Schrader had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the administration’s actions, and the indictment of Abrego Garcia was “the final straw,” a person familiar with the situation told Reuters. Schrader declined comment.
Schrader had posted notice of his resignation on LinkedIn last month, around the time the indictment was filed under seal, but he did not give a reason.
Abrego Garcia was deported on March 15, more than two months before the charges were filed. He was briefly held in a mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, despite a US immigration judge’s 2019 order barring him from being sent to El Salvador because he would likely be persecuted by gangs.
Bondi said Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele had agreed to return Abrego Garcia after US officials presented his government with an arrest warrant. “The grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring,” she told a press conference.
In a court filing on Friday, federal prosecutors asked a judge to keep Abrego Garcia detained pending trial.
Citing an unnamed co-conspirator, prosecutors said Abrego Garcia joined MS-13 in El Salvador by murdering a rival gang member’s mother. The indictment does not charge Abrego Garcia with murder.
Abrego Garcia could face 10 years in prison for each migrant he is convicted of transporting, prosecutors said, a punishment that potentially could keep him incarcerated for the rest of his life.

Tensions with the courts
The case has become a symbol of escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, which has blocked a number of the president’s signature policies. More recently, the US Supreme Court has backed Trump’s hard-line approach to immigration in other cases.
After Abrego Garcia’s lawyers challenged the basis for his deportation, the US Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return, with liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor saying the government had cited no basis for what she called his “warrantless arrest.”
US District Judge Paula Xinis has opened a probe into what, if anything, the Trump administration had done to secure his return, after Abrego Garcia’s lawyers accused officials of stonewalling their requests for information. That led to concerns among Trump’s critics that his administration would openly defy court orders.
In a court filing on Friday, Justice Department lawyers told Xinis that Abrego Garcia’s return meant they were in compliance with the order to facilitate bringing him back to the US
Sandoval-Moshenberg said Abrego Garcia’s return did not mean the government was in compliance, asserting that his client must be placed in immigration proceedings before the same judge who handled his 2019 case.
Chris Van Hollen, a Democratic US senator from Maryland who visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, said in a statement on Friday that the Trump administration has “finally relented to our demands for compliance with court orders and the due process rights afforded to everyone in the United States.”
“The administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along,” Van Hollen said.


Russia launches major overnight attack on Kharkiv, killing one

Updated 19 min 22 sec ago
Follow

Russia launches major overnight attack on Kharkiv, killing one

  • Kharkiv regional Governor Oleg Synegubov posted that seven people were wounded in the aerial assault
  • On June 5, at least 18 people were wounded in strikes on the northeastern city

KYIV, Ukraine: Russia pummelled Ukraine’s second-largest city Kharkiv before dawn on Saturday, launching its “most powerful attack” there since the start of the war, the mayor said, announcing one person killed.
In recent weeks, Russian troops have accelerated their advance while the latest negotiations in Istanbul failed to broker an end to the three-year war.
“Kharkiv is currently experiencing the most powerful attack since the beginning of the full-scale war,” Kharkiv Mayor Igor Terekhov posted on Telegram, describing a barrage of missiles, drones and guided bombs striking simultaneously.
“As of now, at least 40 explosions have been heard in the city over the past hour and a half,” he wrote at 4:40 am (0140 GMT), adding that drones were still buzzing overhead. “The threat remains.”
A strike on a residential building in Kyivsky district killed one person, the mayor said.
Kharkiv regional Governor Oleg Synegubov posted that seven people were wounded in the aerial assault.
“Medical personnel are providing the necessary assistance,” he wrote.
On Thursday, at least 18 people, including four children, were wounded in strikes on the northeastern city that set an apartment bloc on fire.
Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin vowed that Moscow would respond to an audacious Ukrainian drone attack that destroyed several nuclear-capable military jets.
Ukraine has been pushing for an unconditional and immediate 30-day truce, issuing its latest proposal to Moscow at peace talks in Istanbul on Monday. But Russia has repeatedly rejected calls for such a ceasefire.
Tens of thousands of people have been killed, swaths of eastern and southern Ukraine destroyed, and millions forced to flee their homes since Russia invaded in February 2022.
 


Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds

Updated 07 June 2025
Follow

Musk could lose billions of dollars depending on how spat with Trump unfolds

  • “For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon’s businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable”

NEW YORK: The world’s richest man could lose billions in his fight with world’s most powerful politician.
The feud between Elon Musk and Donald Trump could mean Tesla’s plans for self-driving cars hit a roadblock, SpaceX flies fewer missions for NASA, Starlink gets fewer overseas satellite contracts and the social media platform X loses advertisers.
Maybe, that is. It all depends on Trump’s appetite for revenge and how the dispute unfolds.
Joked Telemetry Insight auto analyst Sam Abuelsamid, “Since Trump has no history of retaliating against perceived adversaries, he’ll probably just let this pass.”
Turning serious, he sees trouble ahead for Musk.
“For someone that rants so much about government pork, all of Elon’s businesses are extremely dependent on government largesse, which makes him vulnerable.”
Trump and the federal government also stand to lose from a long-running dispute, but not as much as Musk.
Tesla robotaxis
The dispute comes just a week before a planned test of Tesla’s driverless taxis in Austin, Texas, a major event for the company because sales of its EVs are lagging in many markets, and Musk needs a win.
Trump can mess things up for Tesla by encouraging federal safety regulators to step in at any sign of trouble for the robotaxis.
Even before the war of words broke out on Thursday, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration requested data on how Musk’s driverless, autonomous taxis will perform in low-visibility conditions. That request follows an investigation last year into 2.4 million Teslas equipped with full self-driving software after several accidents, including one that killed a pedestrian.
A spokesman for NHTSA said the probe was ongoing and that the agency “will take any necessary actions to protect road safety.”
The Department of Justice has also probed the safety of Tesla cars, but the status of that investigation is unclear. The DOJ did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
The promise of a self-driving future led by Tesla inspired shareholders to boost the stock by 50 percent in the weeks after Musk confirmed the Austin rollout. But on Thursday, the stock plunged more than 14 percent amid the Trump-Musk standoff. On Friday, it recovered a bit, bouncing back nearly 4 percent.
“Tesla’s recent rise was almost entirely driven by robotaxi enthusiasm,” said Morningstar analyst Seth Goldstein. “Elon’s feud with Trump could be a negative.”
Carbon credits business
One often-overlooked but important part of Tesla’s business that could take a hit is its sales of carbon credits.
As Musk and Trump were slugging it out Thursday, Republican senators inserted new language into Trump’s budget bill that would eliminate fines for gas-powered cars that fall short of fuel economy standards. Tesla has a thriving side business selling “regulatory credits” to other automakers to make up for their shortfalls.
Musk has downplayed the importance of the credits business, but the changes would hurt Tesla as it reels from boycotts of its cars tied to Musk’s time working for Trump.
Credit sales jumped by a third to $595 million in the first three months of the year even as total revenue slumped.
Reviving sales
Musk’s foray into right-wing politics cost Tesla sales among the environmentally minded consumers who embraced electric cars and led to boycotts of Tesla showrooms.
If Musk has indeed ended his close association with Trump, those buyers could come back, but that’s far from certain.
Meanwhile, one analyst speculated earlier this year that Trump voters in so-called red counties could buy Teslas “in a meaningful way.” But he’s now less hopeful.
“There are more questions than answers following Thursday developments,” TD Cowen’s Itay Michaeli wrote in his latest report, “and it’s still too early to determine any lasting impacts.”
Michaeli’s stock target for Tesla earlier this year was $388. He has since lowered it to $330. Tesla was trading Friday at $300.
Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.
Moonshot mess
Trump said Thursday that he could cut government contracts to Musk’s rocket company, SpaceX, a massive threat to a company that has received billions of federal dollars.
The privately held company that is reportedly worth $350 billion provides launches, sends astronauts into space for NASA and has a contract to send a team from the space agency to the moon next year.
But if Musk has a lot to lose, so does the US
SpaceX is the only US company capable of transporting crews to and from the space station, using its four-person Dragon capsules. The other alternative is politically dicey: depending wholly on Russia’s Soyuz capsules.
Musk knew all this when he shot back at Trump that SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft. But it is unclear how serious his threat was. Several hours later — in a reply to another X user — he said he wouldn’t do it.
Starlink impact?
A subsidiary of SpaceX, the satellite Internet company Starlink, appears to also have benefited from Musk’s once-close relationship with the president.
Musk announced that Saudi Arabia had approved Starlink for some services during a trip with Trump in the Middle East last month. The company has also won a string of other recent deals in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India and elsewhere as Trump has threatened tariffs.
It’s not clear how much politics played a role, and how much is pure business.
On Friday, The Associated Press confirmed that India had approved a key license to Starlink. At least 40 percent of India’s more than 1.4 billion people have no access to the Internet.
Ad revival interrupted?
Big advertisers that fled X after Musk welcomed all manner of conspiracy theories to the social media platform have started to trickle back in recent months, possibly out of fear of a conservative backlash.
Musk has called their decision to leave an “illegal boycott” and sued them, and the Trump administration recently weighed in with a Federal Trade Commission probe into possible coordination among them.
Now advertisers may have to worry about a different danger.
If Trump sours on X, “there’s a risk that it could again become politically radioactive for major brands,” said Sarah Kreps, a political scientist at Cornell University. She added, though, that an “exodus isn’t obvious, and it would depend heavily on how the conflict escalates, how long it lasts and how it ends.”


Pentagon watchdog investigates if staffers were asked to delete Hegseth’s Signal messages

Updated 07 June 2025
Follow

Pentagon watchdog investigates if staffers were asked to delete Hegseth’s Signal messages

  • The inspector general’s request focuses on how information about the March 15 airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen was shared on the messaging app

WASHINGTON: The Pentagon’s watchdog is looking into whether any of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s aides were asked to delete Signal messages that may have shared sensitive military information with a reporter, according to two people familiar with the investigation and documents reviewed by The Associated Press.
The inspector general’s request focuses on how information about the March 15 airstrikes on Houthi targets in Yemen was shared on the messaging app.
This comes as Hegseth is scheduled to testify before Congress next week for the first time since his confirmation hearing. He is likely to face questions under oath not only about his handling of sensitive information but also the wider turmoil at the Pentagon following the departures of several senior aides and an internal investigation over information leaks.
Hegseth already has faced questions over the installation of an unsecured Internet line in his office that bypassed the Pentagon’s security protocols and revelations that he shared details about the military strikes in multiple Signal chats.
One of the chats included his wife and brother, while the other included President Donald Trump’s top national security officials and inadvertently included The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg.
Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson had no comment Friday, citing the pending investigation. The inspector general’s office would not discuss the details of the investigation but said that when the report is complete, their office will release unclassified portions of it to the public.
Besides finding out whether anyone was asked to delete Signal messages, the inspector general also is asking some past and current staffers who were with Hegseth on the day of the strikes who posted the information and who had access to his phone, according to the two people familiar with the investigation and the documents reviewed by the AP. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Democratic lawmakers and a small number of Republicans have said that the information Hegseth posted to the Signal chats before the military jets had reached their targets could have put those pilots’ lives at risk and that for any lower-ranking members of the military it would have led to their firing.
Hegseth has said none of the information was classified. Multiple current and former military officials have said there is no way details with that specificity, especially before a strike took place, would have been OK to share on an unsecured device.
“I said repeatedly, nobody is texting war plans,” Hegseth told Fox News Channel in April after reporting emerged about the chat that included his family members. “I look at war plans every day. What was shared over Signal then and now, however you characterize it, was informal, unclassified coordinations, for media coordinations and other things. That’s what I’ve said from the beginning.”
Trump has made clear that Hegseth continues to have his support, saying during a Memorial Day speech at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia that the defense secretary “went through a lot” but “he’s doing really well.”
Hegseth has limited his public engagements with the press since the Signal controversy. He has yet to hold a Pentagon press briefing, and his spokesman has briefed reporters there only once.
The inspector general is investigating Hegseth at the request of the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and the committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island.
Signal is a publicly available app that provides encrypted communications, but it can be hacked and is not approved for carrying classified information. On March 14, one day before the strikes against the Houthis, the Defense Department cautioned personnel about the vulnerability of the app.
Trump has said his administration targeted the Houthis over their “unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence and terrorism.” He has noted the disruption Houthi attacks caused through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, key waterways for energy and cargo shipments between Asia and Europe through Egypt’s Suez Canal.
The Houthi rebels attacked more than 100 merchant vessels with missiles and drones, sinking two vessels and killing four sailors, between November 2023 until January this year. Their leadership described the attacks as aimed at ending the Israeli war against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.