The hunt is on for
November 14, 2016
First, blame it on the electoral college.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose.
She won the popular vote. Second, hit the streets in
So leftist thugs from states that Hillary won - California, New York and Oregon - hit the
streets the day after the elections to enforce
Had Hillary won, the Electoral College would not be
They say the popular vote should
count because Hillary won that. Based on that wish alone, two states out
of the 50 could have made her the victor in the 2016 Presidential Election.
But wait a minute to consider the
California and New York, two of the
three most populous states, would have decided the elections
by a differential of some 4 million votes. What would this
mean for the rest of the country?
The question forces one to wonder
whether the protests against Trump were thoughtful, organic
or purposefully organized to deny him legitimacy.
rule before the elections was that the Electoral College was the decider,
as always as it has been since it was crafted in 1787.
Antiquated? No, just
As consequence of this rule by the
Constitution, Trump won. And is the president-elect, with or without the popular vote.
But the cry for presumptuous change
of the result via the unlawful popular vote system pointed out something
else: the deep letdown of the losers and the character of the little minds
who cry for democracy without knowing how to protect it.
Liking or not liking Trump is not
the issue here. But some wouldn't know or care.
The Trumpsters were
called “dumb and uneducated” immediately
the results were known, which
prompted one to
ask what the smart set were doing when the "dump" ones were
voting for Trump.
stated, the smart set didn't know how to win because they
read the whole scenario of America wrong.
So no use calling the Trumpsters
racists either. They knew how to
work the Electoral College for victory.
The Electoral College
is a marvel of a vast, brilliant political design;
purposefully conceived to hold together the benefits of the
representative republic that
It provides a mix of popular
participation in-states but still upholds the interests of
the federal government by giving the less populous states
some leverage within the system.
Thus, it is also able to
preserve the concept of representative democracy by holding in check the
that the more populous states can inflict on the less
populous, smaller states.
Consider the mayhem the popular vote can cause for the
As said, two states alone in the
union could have swung the victory for Hillary in the 2016
election . California and New York.
The above two are three of the most heavily populated states in
America; also the most demographically variable since they
are magnets for immigrants.
instance, gives illegals access to driver's license, healthcare
coverage for their children and in-state tuition.
Some new arrivals in these liberal states manage to vote,
by fair or foul means, and they are easily
impressed by the Democrat party
and its lax welfare state policies.
Given this condition,
almost loose verifications for citizenship at some
polling station, why would these states not be the
"world-bank" for Democrat votes?
The votes, at election time, with a
minimum of two political parties contesting, are
meant to protect
These are the institutions that guard the ideals of freedom, tolerance
and the opportunities for the variable life choices that make life
attractive for the immigrant.
America, each year and despite its
advertised faults, still attracts
more immigrants from all parts of the World than the rest.
They come to America to
better their life chances.
It should, therefore, be in the immigrants
interest to preserve some of the ideals that attracted them
here - the same ideals, the lack of which pushed them out of their countries of origin.
This is not to say, America is
paradise. It is to note the perils at the ballot when
exposed to political sensibilities and whims
from other lands.
Parts of the world are used to the
cry of "one man one vote" system and its consequential
strives that sometimes end in coups.
The new arrival in America is yet
to understand that the Electoral College system, in
great measures, is a better bulwark against these
strives than the popular vote in the country he has fled
In America, 270 electors out of 530
elect the president and Vice President.
Trump had 306 electors to
Hillary's 232. Despite the protests in the streets,
Trump won. Hillary didn't.
Again, popular vote or not, the
Electoral College has decided! (Check,
3 million illegal votes cast in 2016 election)
Conceptually, the infrastructure of the Electoral College is
simple. Electors are decided by size of population in a state
as reflected in its Congressional
The largest state, California, has
55 electors and the smallest ones 3 each to make up a total
of 530 electors for all the states and for the whole nation.
Thus each state has a proportional
stake in the election
With the 530 electors spread throughout the United
States, this electoral map forces a potential
presidential candidate in a campaign to pay attention to all states in the union so as to build
his or her total of 270 electors for victory at the end.
As good as this design is, it will be naive to assume
at this stage that there is no corruption within states in the American political system.
All the malpractices found in a Third World system exists in
America too. The over-vote counts, ballot stuffing,
political manipulations, bribery and sheer intimidation
exist here within states.
Thankfully, the Electoral
College limits these practices to within states.
acts like sandbag to provide barriers against
voter pollution spills from state to state; a feat a
direct popular vote system couldn't do.
and New York, in spite of their overwhelming vote for
Hillary, were limited to their absolute given numbers of electors
- 55 for California and 29 for New York.
Assuming there were voter
corruptions in these states, they would be contained there
by the number of the electors already assigned by
virtue of the Electoral College system. And no amount of questionable
acts could make a difference in the
final elector count in the individual state..
In plain English, any number past a
plurairty winning point in a state, even in millions, would
not make a whiff of a difference to the absolute elector
count for that state.
think there is a lesson here for Ghana and other nations
that use the popular vote system.
Imagine the Electoral College effect in Ghana.
"world bank" constituencies in the country would have very
limited influence on elections. Paying and importing nationals from
adjoining nations to vote would not matter much because no
matter the number you bring in, in addition to the
ballot-stuffings, you will still be limited to an absolute,
predetermined number of electors per constituency!
Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, November 14,
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish
or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a
website, email a copy of the web page to
email@example.com . Or don't publish at all.