Archive for the ‘AMERICAN ELECTION 2016’ Tag

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: THE INDEPENDENT SAYS HILLARY SET TO WIN 2.5 MILLION MORE POPULAR VOTES THAN TRUMP – THE COMPLETE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING SHOWN BY SUCH POP JOURNALISM – HOW AMERICAN ELECTIONS ARE REQUIRED TO WORK – THE LACK OF INTEREST AND DIFFICULTY IN CHANGING THE RULES – MORE ON AMERICAN “DEMOCRACY”   Leave a comment

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE INDEPENDENT

 

Really, this is an idiotic column.

America’s way of electing governments has never been what could be called democratic.

Indeed, the Founders went out of their way to call the new political entity a “republic” rather than a democracy. And the word “republic” is one of the most undefined terms in political science, meaning little more than government by some kind of representatives, however selected, and the absence of a monarch.

America has had many minority presidents, including the very George W Bush you mention, in 2000.

It is because of the Electoral College system set up by the Founders in the Constitution. These were mostly men who did not trust democracy and wanted safety valves against popular votes disturbing the privileges and wealth of the upper class.

Until 1913, the Senate, that most powerful body in the American government, was an appointed body for the same reason that the President is not directly elected by the people. All that grand pageant through the Nineteenth Century of American history, involving many famous and infamous names of Senators, was in fact about appointed officials, a fact few Americans even know.

The Electoral College system of election could be changed, but the Founders deliberately made it exceedingly difficult to change the Constitution they were creating. An amendment would require approval of the Senate, the House of Representatives, the President, and a vote in all fifty states. That’s a lot of effort and political capital spent to correct something that only pops up to irritate people once in a few decades.

The matter has never generated the intense public and political momentum necessary. Hillary Clinton, after Bush’s minority win in 2000, said it should be abolished, but, as with so many things Hillary said, she never did much about it.

What your column boils down to is a statement something like Trump was elected exactly according to the rules for American elections with an added sentiment, owing to ignorance of history and the rules, of “Gee, that ain’t democratic.”

No, it is not, but then neither is America.

Added thoughts.

As a reader below has pointed out, does the rising Clinton total of popular vote include the 3 million non-citizens who are said to have voted, completely illegally?

This behavior was definitely a form of vote fraud, and it was encouraged and enabled by Obama and Clinton in a kind of burst of faux populism put on just to keep their losing cause going.

And further, academic studies have shown, Hillary in fact stole the nomination of her party from Sanders. It was a long and shameless set of behaviors, and things just do not come more anti-democratic than that.

JOHN CHUCKMAN COMMENT: EARLY THOUGHTS ON THE IOWA CAUCUS RESULTS   Leave a comment

John Chuckman

COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN

 

Whoa, there, boys. Don’t get so excited.

The Iowa Caucus, historically, is an extremely unimportant event in American presidential politics, only getting attention because it comes first.

First, it’s not a true simple ballot like New Hampshire or other primaries. It is a time consuming operation which deters many and this gives it a built-in bias.

Second, most of the winners in Iowa’s caucus history went on to win nothing, often not even their own party nomination.

Third, there could well have been skulduggery by Hillary’s camp. Microsoft, a Hillary-friendly corporation, was involved in getting the tally.

Microsoft also, as many know from the on-going Windows 10 Assault upon their personal computers, is not the world’s most scrupulous company in any event.

Sanders is requesting the actual votes. After all, polls immediately before the caucus showed him in the lead.

On the Republican side, first, Cruz very possibly is Constitutionally excluded. His case is different in details from Obama’s.

It will require a Supreme Court challenge at some point to decide whether a parent outside the U.S. registering a child with the State Department under a law of not many years ago, created for the benefit of corporate and military personnel abroad, is equivalent the Constitution’s demand for “natural born.”

That can’t be decided outside the highest court.

Two, Cruz’s people definitely used an underhanded tactic in Iowa. They were reprimanded by a state official just yesterday for sending out postcards with phony claims about official voting records, an effort to influence who voted.

At any rate, now the serious stuff begins.