|Photo Credit - Parade|
Any Candidate Who Wins The Most Votes Should Win
An Election. Time For The Undemocratic Electoral College
One Million More Votes. If the Presidential Election was a State election, decided the same way most states in this union called the United States of America are -- One Million More Votes than any competitor would equal a massive win.
Using the theory of percentages, if an individual or entity received a Majority of votes or support by percentages over another using what is widely known as Majority Rules - they would rule the day.
However, when a majority of votes or a large percentage applies to what is known as Presidential Elections in the United States, the candidate receiving fewer votes - can win. Something is wrong in Kansas and everywhere else with this.
According to news resources, Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton has not only won the popular vote but, has won such a vote by a historical amount. One million votes and still counting.
Never in America's History has a candidate has overtaken a competitor by one million votes and failed to win the Presidency.
"Hillary Clinton now leads the national popular vote for president by roughly one million votes, and her victory margin is expanding rapidly. That margin could easily double before the end of an arduous process of counting ballots, reviewing results and reconciling numbers for an official total," the Nation cited.
But one thing is certain: Clinton’s win is unprecedented in the modern history of American presidential politics. And the numbers should focus attention on the democratic dysfunction that has been exposed.
When a candidate who wins the popular vote does not take office, when a loser is instead installed in the White House, that is an issue. And it raises questions that must be addressed."
The last time in modern history an Presidential Election was decided by the Electoral College not in synch with the Popular vote was The Famous 2000 Election with Candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore. In this election, which came down to the state of Florida, 537 hanging chads and a U.S. Supreme Court ultimately making the decision on who would be President for what would be the next eight years.
However, George W. Bush was no Donald Trump. Bush won over 40% of the Latino vote and another 20% of the African-American vote - both Men and Women combined of these minority groups.
Also, Bush was not an extremely divisive figure whose first hire to have his ear in his White House, was an Alt-Right pinch salesman named Steve Bannon of Breitbart.com either.
Which leads to the clear conclusion The Electorial College is outdated and must be deleted, immediately.
The Electoral College history itself is knee deep in racial biases.
"Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery," noted Time Magazine. At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president.
But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.”
In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote.
But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count."