A huge blow to this ancient institution has been struck. Now we are being told that we must live with the consequences. The most recent numbers I have heard are still not finalized, that won't happen until the end of the moon , however the "loser" of the most recent election will have nearly two million more votes than the declared "winner" of The recent election in the U.S. of A.. Adding insult to injury, this is only the fifth time in our relatively young nation's history that the Electoral College will install a President who has received less votes than their opponent. It happened three times in the first century and this will make twice in the second half of our 240 year history. Here is how that works. In the early days, rural Americans knew that their voices would not be heard until and unless they had more say in who got to be President. As a result, a system was designed that unfairly weighted the "one man, one vote" system that existed before to give people living in less populous states more power. Perhaps the most egregious is the state of Wyoming, although there are others who are not far off, see, each and every vote in Wyoming counts as heavily (in the Electoral College) as 3.62 votes in California. the winner take all nature of the states guarantees the same lopsided representation that has crushed democracy on a local level. People are finally seriously discussing how we can have such an unfair system that penalizes people by their zip code, or state of residence.
In terms of raw numbers, as I mentioned before, the "loser" in this race is looking to have amassed over two million votes more than her opponent, yet, when the electoral college meets, after the votes from all jurisdictions have finally been certified, they will hand the most powerful elected office on the planet to the person who got less votes. I know that I have a huge following from around the world, so let me try to explain just a little about how this is even possible. First, and perhaps foremost, the old way of doing things had at least two primary purposes, perhaps three. First, transport was very slow when the system was designed. States had a major undertaking on their hands when it came to the logistics of taking a vote, even greater distances lay between the remote parts of the country and the seat of power in the East. Distances were great in many states and roads were poor or in some areas non-existent. Having electors in the nation's capitol made the tabulation possible and each of these people was directed to make the will of the people of their state known in a final tally. It seemed to make sense in 1787. Why the rural areas had more say was a combination of two more things. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, even back then, populations in cities had been growing and people living in the hinterland knew that they would be summarily ignored with a one person one vote system. After all, why would any candidate go to out of the way places like rural areas on the "frontier", if they could secure the votes needed in the largest cities easily. The way it was explained to me in grade school, "If the rural landowners ever wanted to see a candidate, there needed to be a system that made their votes more valuable than those of folks living in the cities." If they were ever to have their concerns get any attention at all, they would need more power. This is also a holdover from the old way of determining who was eligible to vote. The landed gentry, the 1% of their time did not want the vast majority of poor folks directing the affairs of our nation, so this system assured that more power would reside in the votes of relatively underpopulated areas.
Why wouldn't they think that rural votes should be worth more? After all, at the time we were a primarily agrarian nation. Those who owned the most land were fully expected to have more say in the affairs of our nation. We could argue about why that system penalizes city folk, but that would make no sense to people from 1787. In modern times, we can look at a few elections that will help make sense of the numbers. More votes were cast for the, Electoral College determined, "loser" in this race than Barack Obama received when he became President just eight years ago. She will have won the raw vote by a greater margin than either Nixon or J. F. K. Continuing protests from around the world point to the fact that people concerned about democracy are not willing to stand for this archaic system any longer, especially when it leads to a professional theft of a nation, a corruption of the highest elected office on the planet and/or the terrible example of a human being that is being exalted by a relative handful of extremely powerful people in Washington D.C. 538 people will determine who the next President of the United States will be. The system that continues to work against the will of the public is being called out very vocally this time and we can only hope that the process by which we hand over power in our nation will change because of the disastrous consequences that will come from installing such a terrible candidate.
I have said repeatedly that sloppy language is an indicator of sloppy thinking and anyone who has seen The Donald speak knows that his thought process is crippled. At last count, I read that he has changed his mind on eleven policy positions that he attempted to make clear during his campaign, that was several days ago so I'm sure that other commitments have fallen by the wayside since then. heck, he changed his mind about at least three major policy points just from meeting with the current President for an hour and a half. He remains completely insulated from reality up there in his tower. for all his rhetoric about helping the "average" American, he has not the first clue about what our lives entail. so much for a system of, by and for the people.
In terms of raw numbers, as I mentioned before, the "loser" in this race is looking to have amassed over two million votes more than her opponent, yet, when the electoral college meets, after the votes from all jurisdictions have finally been certified, they will hand the most powerful elected office on the planet to the person who got less votes. I know that I have a huge following from around the world, so let me try to explain just a little about how this is even possible. First, and perhaps foremost, the old way of doing things had at least two primary purposes, perhaps three. First, transport was very slow when the system was designed. States had a major undertaking on their hands when it came to the logistics of taking a vote, even greater distances lay between the remote parts of the country and the seat of power in the East. Distances were great in many states and roads were poor or in some areas non-existent. Having electors in the nation's capitol made the tabulation possible and each of these people was directed to make the will of the people of their state known in a final tally. It seemed to make sense in 1787. Why the rural areas had more say was a combination of two more things. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, even back then, populations in cities had been growing and people living in the hinterland knew that they would be summarily ignored with a one person one vote system. After all, why would any candidate go to out of the way places like rural areas on the "frontier", if they could secure the votes needed in the largest cities easily. The way it was explained to me in grade school, "If the rural landowners ever wanted to see a candidate, there needed to be a system that made their votes more valuable than those of folks living in the cities." If they were ever to have their concerns get any attention at all, they would need more power. This is also a holdover from the old way of determining who was eligible to vote. The landed gentry, the 1% of their time did not want the vast majority of poor folks directing the affairs of our nation, so this system assured that more power would reside in the votes of relatively underpopulated areas.
Why wouldn't they think that rural votes should be worth more? After all, at the time we were a primarily agrarian nation. Those who owned the most land were fully expected to have more say in the affairs of our nation. We could argue about why that system penalizes city folk, but that would make no sense to people from 1787. In modern times, we can look at a few elections that will help make sense of the numbers. More votes were cast for the, Electoral College determined, "loser" in this race than Barack Obama received when he became President just eight years ago. She will have won the raw vote by a greater margin than either Nixon or J. F. K. Continuing protests from around the world point to the fact that people concerned about democracy are not willing to stand for this archaic system any longer, especially when it leads to a professional theft of a nation, a corruption of the highest elected office on the planet and/or the terrible example of a human being that is being exalted by a relative handful of extremely powerful people in Washington D.C. 538 people will determine who the next President of the United States will be. The system that continues to work against the will of the public is being called out very vocally this time and we can only hope that the process by which we hand over power in our nation will change because of the disastrous consequences that will come from installing such a terrible candidate.
I have said repeatedly that sloppy language is an indicator of sloppy thinking and anyone who has seen The Donald speak knows that his thought process is crippled. At last count, I read that he has changed his mind on eleven policy positions that he attempted to make clear during his campaign, that was several days ago so I'm sure that other commitments have fallen by the wayside since then. heck, he changed his mind about at least three major policy points just from meeting with the current President for an hour and a half. He remains completely insulated from reality up there in his tower. for all his rhetoric about helping the "average" American, he has not the first clue about what our lives entail. so much for a system of, by and for the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment