|
I’ll start this blog by telling you the differences in the mentalities between the four biggest political Parties. (Don’t worry, I’ll be quick.)
- Democrats look for the truth and try to work with it. They don’t always do the best job of finding a solution, but they know the facts.
- Republicans use any truth they come across that fits their viewpoint and deny anything that doesn’t.
- Greens jump to a conclusion and seek out facts that support the conclusion.
- Libertarians (in the United States) are so worried about their lives being regulated they see plots where none exist.
And so, after I replied to a FaceBook comment claiming (wrongly) that we are not a democracy--he used a capital D!--by correcting him, saying the purpose of the word “republic” in the Constitution was to make sure the President doesn’t get too much power, and that the election of Congress is entirely democratic in nature. He responded with four statements that I immediately addressed factually.
In this blog, I present that response, with additions and explanations. I started with by answering the four statements. I've added a commentary in italic.
|
Yes, this is the sixth time the popular vote winner has lost the electoral count.
- In 1824 the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams
1876 saw the Electoral Votes in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina, and one in Oregon, in dispute. The Compromise of 1877 gave it to Rutherford B. Hayes and ended the Reconstruction Era.
- In 1888, Benjamin Harrison won on Electoral votes.
- The 1960 popular vote is still disputed to this day because of controversy in Alabama, resulting in the lack of the actual numbers. The electoral voters became unpledged, and all voted for Harry F. Byrd of the Southern Democrat Party.
- The 2000 Election had the infamous Florida debacle.
- In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the Electoral Vote, but lost the electoral vote because of the debate against Bernie Sanders in Flint, Michigan (see below).
No, there were not more votes cast than there were registered voters. Jill Stein made the accusation of voter fraud in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, but presented no evidence. The last time these accusations were made, there were only seven convictions, and almost all of the rest were discovered to be such things as mistaken identity or error by a recorder.
I was referring to 2008, which was far more publicized than the 2012 accusations. The result is always some form of error, except in extremely rare cases.
No, Clinton didn’t call for a recount despite being encouraged to. It was Jill Stein who recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, while Rocky de la Fuente got a recount in Nevada. She *did* support Stein’s efforts, though, but the Obama administration confirmed the results and Nate Silver called the results accurate after accounting for certain factors.
The fact that Clinton supported the recounts after being encouraged to call for them herself has led many to believe she called for them. This is what’s known as the "Mandela Effect": When the human mind is missing a piece of information, it takes other pieces of information and pieces them together into something that makes sense. Since the factual information is widely known, many minds draw the same conclusion. It is commonly misinterpreted in different ways, such as “jumping time-tracks”.
And yes, she lost more votes in recounts, but only significantly in a handful of precincts in Detroit.
The Michigan recount was partial, and significant errors were only found in these precincts, not only in Michigan, but among all the recounts.
There’s the claim that those three states (PA, MI, WI) would have made the difference. Here’s why it didn’t happen:
Fracking.
Like it or not, fracking was the deciding factor.
Pennsylvania’s economy is heavily reliant on fracking. Clinton supported fracking conditionally, while Trump’s was unconditional. Result: Trump wins. If fracking weren’t an issue, Clinton wins by a wide margin.
Let’s get it straight: No matter who the Democrats put up, Donald Trump wins Pennsylvania. Even with how massively popular Bernie Sanders was, Pennsylvania was one of his weakest states, and even he would not have won there because of his opposition to fracking.
In the debate in Flint, Michigan, where water is brown because of fracking, Hillary stated her support for it. This was remembered afterward (and people still wonder how I was so certain Bernie would win there--this is why!), and they didn’t want Trump for the same reason, so many stayed home (which is actually a protest vote and why we need a “none of the above” option). A few voted for Stein or Johnson, but not enough to make a difference.
I remember sitting at home talking to Hillary supporters claiming Michigan was in the bag throughout primary election night. Even as Bernie was catching up, I was telling them he’d win--and they still wouldn’t accept that Clinton could possibly lose in that state. At least, not until Bernie actually caught up.
As for the “None of the Above” option, yes, it’s necessary. Without it, the Parties won’t know how they screwed up in the Primaries. The foundation for adding superdelegates was Humphrey’s 1968 nomination, without running in any primaries. The official recommendation came in February 1982. The recommendation was 30%, but it was implemented at 14% for 1984 and has hovered around 20% since 2008. On February 12, 2016, then-DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz implied superdelegates were positioned to avoid competition with grassroots activists. It was proven the competition exists when the superdelegates nominated Clinton on the second ballot despite how many Clinton delegates voiced support for Sanders. Even Tim Kaine, Clinton’s choice for Vice President, criticized the superdelegate method after the election, agreeing with Sanders that there should be no superdelegates. The “None of the Above” option would make superdelegates moot because it tells the Parties what they don’t want to see on the ballot.
Wisconsin was a toss-up and would have made no difference in the result. The votes were recounted with no significant change. Stein’s vote count being larger than the difference between Clinton and Trump is mainly because of how big the Green Party is in Wisconsin.
Jill Stein was immediately blamed for Clinton losing Wisconsin, but the numbers don’t favor the supposition.
If you want the whole, unvarnished truth, look at the fact that there were more unfaithful electors since George Washington’s second election. Even in states where electors were required to vote for the state winner, some still cast their ballots for others. One even withdrew rather than vote for Trump. That, alone, should tell anyone how bad we screwed ourselves over during the primaries.
Most of the states that required the electors vote for the candidate who won that state were Republican and went to Trump. Likewise, the unfaithful electors were almost all in states Clinton won. Texas was the only state where electors still voted against Trump despite the requirement, two voting for other Republicans, this despite alternates being brought in. If the states had not issued this requirement, it is possible Trump may not have had the 270 votes required to win.
We had a choice between two master manipulators in 2016. One got the nomination through taking over the Party financially; the other was elected by playing both sides, making the opposing side believe lies they would scream about (especially that he was a racist; he was actually best friends with Muhammed Ali and was also counted as a friend by Malcolm X) so the real racists would come out of the woodwork; they did, as confirmation of lying. (Trust me, the right knows how to manipulate the left, but not on this scale.) The left also made the mistake of calling him a “reality star”, giving him votes because an astonishingly large number of voters make their decision based solely on superficial reasons, such as fame. Plus, Trump knows how to turn anything to his advantage, which can easily be seen as manipulation.
This is the truly disgusting thing about the 2016 Presidential Election. It exposed the ignorance people use to make critical decisions, trusting what people say instead of checking the facts. Of course, while we had no clue what was happening with the DNC, Trump’s racist appearance should have been checked. The goal of making Democrats think he was a racist was publicity aimed at the Republican Party’s racist element. (Remember, not all Republicans are racist, but all racists are Republicans.) While it had little impact on Democratic voter turnout, it gave racists someone to vote for--which they had been looking for since Barak Obama won in 2008. The unwitting left gave them the excuse they needed.
(I strongly suspect the RNC wanted Rick Perry. He’s pro-business and well known in the largest state with a significant racist base.)
The left supported Clinton for three reasons:
- Many wanted the first woman President and wouldn’t vote any other way;
Note what I said above: “an astonishingly large number of voters make their decision based solely on superficial reasons”. Voting for someone like yourself is one of those “superficial reasons”. Women voting for women; blacks voting for blacks; whites voting for whites. Although each has its own significant differences in why (such as equality for the first two and dominance for the latter), on the surface, they are all the same.
- She had control over DNC finances, as revealed last year, thus controlling advertising and superdelegates; and
We now know that the DNC was badly in debt and on the verge of insolvency. Donna Brazille admitted this toward the end of last year. It was Clinton who offered the money to save the Party, using her financial influence to keep it strapped for cash and creating a conflict of interests that went in her favor.
- to show up Republicans for attacking her, especially after Benghazi. That issue should have vanished because th3e Secretary of Defense, not State, is in the military chain of command, and he took full responsibility. The Secretary of State would have never been called for a military issue under any circumstances because they won’t break chain of command. But the accusers didn’t relent, and the Democrats reacted the wrong way.
Nominating someone to “show up” the other Party is more likely to hand the election over to them because the rallied voters are usually on the other side. Your voters won’t trust your nominee, and the other Party will seize the advantage.
None of these are valid reasons because they either don’t deal with the actual issues to be dealt with or were just to make a point.
Once the decision is made, it’s too late to look at the issues. And looking at only one or two issues, like most voters did, leads to the wrong person being chosen.
I may come across as a Clinton defender. No, I believe in truth more than anything, and if that means I defend either Clinton or Trump, so be it. I’m not a supporter of either Trump or Clinton. I don’t believe a CEO in that office can be impartial, and many of his actions favor corporate profit. And I’ve been watching Clinton since Bill’s impeachment and have liked her less and less, especially after some of her actions as Senator; a 2004 interview with Elizabeth Warren reveals one case. I’m a registered Democrat who knocked on doors to push downballot nominees in 2016, but I wouldn’t even address the Presidential election.
Truth is the key to unity, not deception and force.
When the first Party Convention was televised in 1968, it revealed conflict and dissention to the entire nation, including someone starting a fire. Since that time, every convention has been carefully scripted and controlled to attempt to show Party unity. This illusion has ended with livestreaming on the Internet, but the attempt to create the illusion is still present. The truth is beginning to emerge, but it’s now a matter of how many will be willing to hear it.
I realized in June, 2015 that Clinton couldn’t win the general election because she’d never win over the Millennials. When the second ballot gave her the nomination despite the swing in the regular delegates, the only thought in my mind was, “They’re giving it to Trump.”
Every election year, I sit down and I determine the “worst case scenario” for that election. In every previous election, it was narrowly avoided. In 2016, the worst case was that Hillary Clinton, who supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership and whom many knew couldn’t win the general election, would be the Democratic nominee; and Donald Trump, an arrogant pro-corporate millionaire, won the Republican nomination. I knew Trump would ignore key laws to embolden the corporations at the expense of everyone else, which is what we’ve seen happening since day one.
Trump had the nomination the instant it was just he and Cruz. Cruz [i]s ineligible for the same reason the Republicans claimed Obama was ineligible, so Trump would have easily had Cruz disqualified had he been nominated.
The birther movement began not with Trump, as many claim. Trump reinvigorated it when it was dying out. It was actually started by the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, whose name I can't find. He demanded to see the birth certificate and subsequently called it a forgery upon receipt.
Seriously, the 2016 Presidential Election was nothing more than one big mess.
|
And that was the end of my reply. Brutal honesty.
Until next time.
|
