The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Electoral College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Electoral College. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

US Elections: A Flawed Process (Electors, Fraud, Timing)





Image result for elections fraudI have long posited the US Federal Election process (as per the US Constitution) is flawed. The election processes in the 50 states have shown, and are showing, the reality of the Electoral College (as written) all too often results in state-by-state election results calls within mere hours of the voting poll closings. A  ridiculous notion since the 1990s. Alas, the influence of technology when placed against the passages in a document written well over 200 years ago seriously supports a need for modification or summary elimination. Case in point. The Electoral College was an early and necessary addition to the US Constitution, in part, due to the existential geographic population (spread) difference and developing economic considerations between more and less agrarian states/ territories. A balancing of voting impact with regard to less populated regions (and states) was critical and effective for well over one and one-half centuries. But things have changed. The over-simplistic view of the Electoral College, hopefully, will facilitate what follows. 

Recall the advent of electricity, communications mediums based on electricity and associated techno advancements of the late 20th Century have literally cast a light of suspicion on the Electoral College and how impacts current elections. The Internet and major advancements in collecting and counting votes have led to state election commissions, (with public announcements via cable TV ratings-hungry news operations), and electors deciding elections with 24 hours of national voting poll openings. Well, let's consider a key dynamic. The national vote in the 19th and most of the 20th Century could not have been decided in 24 hours. There was no Internet, nor advancing polling systems which precluded the need for voters to take weeks and maybe months to reach a final outcome. When and why have we allowed technology influenced national elections to become a leading factor in handing-over possibly flawed election counts to state Electors?
Example Hillary Clinton finished the 2016 election campaign and election with 2.84 million more votes than Trump. Another set of flawed voting systems and processes, how many states have we just witnessed finally complete election counts weeks after the November midterm elections? A simple process of deduction indicates flawed final state results until weeks after the election polls close, should lead even the not so intelligent to reason: is the final count as stated cable newsrooms and voting night election commissions always an accurate count? Yet, we watched CNN's Wolf Blitzer literally beret, His election night board guy, John King, towards calling the Florida state election. King seemed uncomfortable with Blitzers pushing for what could only be considered ratings hungry need to call a state election results before MSNBC and (heaven forbid) Fox News show productions. Yet General Election (presidential vote) state electors cast national election votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December every four years. All said and without consideration of matters which seem to affect each and every national/state election, voter suppression, we find ourselves continuing to find state elections unsettled and more. The state of North Carolina is at this moment showing signs of vote handling malfeasance which could lead to a re-vote. Imagine that a re-vote due to absentee ballots which have gone missing?

CNN


Earlier this morning WSOC TV local news ran this 36 segment along with a related discussion.
I digress into possible Republican voter fraud.

The salient point of the digression was to add validation elections take time. No US elections should be settled with some artificial time frame imposed upon us via ratings seeking cable news production teams and party electors bound to cast votes for their party even when we have empirical evidence final votes take time. 


Settling elections within 24 hours of closed polling places is a ridiculous as the reality of Donald Trump sitting in the White House.

On the matter of voter fraud, Bloomberg published a piece with noteworthy reporting on voter fraud for the GOP.

The Election Fraud Is Coming From Inside the GOP Undermining voters from Wisconsin to North Carolina.



StumbleUpon

Saturday, May 19, 2018

Quick Hit: Popular Vote Or No?





By now if you are a liberal, progressive (if you prefer) or a rational Independent you see and feel that tragedy of allowing the Electoral College to award the US Presidency before the popular vote is counted. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, yet we sit every day in the midst of a horrific reality TV show called Trumpism.

Robert Reich, Dept. of Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, published a two minute video about how to change the GO hold on the Electoral College.

Granted Reich's comments would be almost impossible to enact as we consider the majority GOP hold on state legislatures.

StumbleUpon

Sunday, July 9, 2017

The Failed Electoral College (And Our Failing President)



Image result for electoral college
A failed process (system) which is outdated and flawed considering modern technology

History dot com
has an archived piece about the US electoral process. The article is a good summary of a process which was modified by the Constitutional 12th Amendment. After the fall 2016 General election, it seems the electoral process needs another even more detailed review.

In the second paragraph of the piece Summary, one sentence stands out and places a strain on the perception the electoral system is working as Amended in 1804 (12th Amendment). 

In each presidential election year, a group of candidates for elector is nominated by political parties and other groupings in each state, usually at a state party convention, or by the party state committee. It is these elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system.

What is wrong with the picture?  The picture clearly states the current Electoral process is driven by the popular vote.  Yes, or course, we think we are voting for a single candidate (President and Vice Presidential ticket) while actually voting for electors. The statement drives a critical question.

Why is the popular vote used to elect electors, in the modern America, if the popular vote isn't settled until approximately three to four weeks after election night?  Another critical question, are we to believe in 1804 votes were counted by midnight on the election day? While election days and dates were set to accommodate rural agricultural farmers via periods of less crop activity, I find it impossible to believe there was consideration of what was to come via TV and digital technology.  

The 12th Amendment included a change in how (the basis for) electors cast their votes.  Good policy is very much the result of time proven need for change.  After of a decade and a half (post-Constitutional ratification) does the rational person not believe those same 1804 change agents wouldn't have developed process change regarding the electronic influences on our current elections. How is it rational (and credible) to have Wolf Blitzer John King (CNN) and Steve Kornacki (MSNBC) on camera reporting state win declarations based on backroom production geeks who declare wins which are more often than not isn't the actual final vote count? Donald Trump lost the popular vote by 2.84 million votes. 

How is that reality an indication of a fair and credible voting process? How is it possible the former leading 
 internationally democracy (the USA) can settle into a presidency of a person who did not win the popular vote? A vote which History dot com indicates via its verbiage has electors considering the final vote.  
StumbleUpon

Saturday, June 10, 2017

Trump Talking Head Insults Humankind: "Trump is Not A Liar"





Image may contain: 1 person, text

Trump and his inner core mind-shapers sent a "presstitute" to the White House presser conference late week with a message: Trump is not a liar. Well, Tel me I am handsome; I will get a momentary shot of dopamine. Tell me I am wealthy; My first thought would be "I wish" while knowing you are misinformed or lying to me. Tell me Donald Trump is "not a liar" you have gone overboard with an attempt to mind shape or feed fodder to sycophant supporters while the world knows differently. Every utterance from Trump's mouth should first be considered a lie long ith the prospect 15% of the words may have a degree of truth.

A number of social media sources have posted articles or comment about Trump's lying. Buzzfeed's version is linked, here. Politifact's Trump file includes a graphic which shows Trump lies (In some form) far more than he speaks the truth: here. Interesting and informative Politico piece regarding Trumps lying.

While this piece came to be base don the Meme atop the piece, I can not help but end with a couple of snippets from Trump's Rose Garden comments of yesterday. He still hasn't learned he can not go on camera and lie about his just completed meeting with international leaders. 





Donald Trump is woefully ill-prepared for the office of the US Presidency. 

I really have to add this 52-second snippet from this morning's AM Joy Show on MSNBC.







StumbleUpon

Monday, June 5, 2017

Gallup On Trump (June 3, 2017)



Have you noticed the nation's 45th president and official poll lover hasn't mentioned the word "polls" since just after his electoral college false win last November?

MSNBC's 





With Trump's approval dropping to 36% in Gallup, last week's anti-climate move wasn't just a policy disaster. It was politically unwise, too





CNN reports with Gallup as a basis for comment.


Any wonder?
StumbleUpon

Monday, December 19, 2016

Electors Dutifully Electing Trump

Image may contain: 3 people, text


As reports are coming in Trump has 216 electoral votes to Clinton's 96 with one New England elector still supporting the failed and influencing Bernie Sanders.  the question is bouncing around about the Electoral College.  
Why? Earlier today I posted a piece from my Facebook feed from Tim Wise (noted lecturer, writer and anti-racist activist) regarding a few perceptions about the genesis of the Electoral College. 
The following is another perspective in a political tool which, in my opinion, has far outgrown its usefulness while moving to a election tool for the GOP. 

The Daily Signal: Why the electoral College?
Excerpts 
Many modern voters might be surprised to learn that when they step into a ballot box to select their candidate for president, they actually are casting a vote for fellow Americans called electors. These electors, appointed by the states, are pledged to support the presidential candidate the voters have supported. The Electoral College holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the election. 
Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”  
As students of ancient history, the Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.
FINAL VOTE TALLY - Hillary won the popular vote by 2,864,974 votes

Almost three million votes separated the real winner of the 2016 election from the person who will be awarded the US Presidency via a system which should have been removed from our civics electoral system many decades ago. 
The business of running the US as a Republic isn't working for rational Americans or Americans who need a stable and supportive federal government. While the following NBC chart clearly shows 55% of a polled group of Americans think Russian hacking to elect Trump is bothersome, check out the Twitter post that follows.
Over half of a polled group of Americans do not care that Trumps; campaign may very well have received subversive support from Russian hackers.
Now for a bit of information which won't surprise informed liberals, progressives, and open-minded Independents:
An indictment of how effectively the GOP and conservative media have dumbed-down millions who are showing a level of sycophancy unparalleled in our history.
From a flawed electoral system to an indication of how Trump will deal with inevitable criticism from Americans who might criticize Trump. 
How is the Trump cabal dealing with the reality of a general election vote that finalized with the loser winning in pure number by 2.8 million voters?
StumbleUpon

The Electoral College: A Conduit To Democracy Or A Tool Of Southern Colonial Aristocrats


As GOP electors cast votes to validate the lopsided vote of Trump to the US Presidency, I can not help but post a piece I found on my Facebook feed.

Image result for constitutional congressAuthor, lecturer, and anti-racists Tim Wise has addressed discussions of the origins of the Electoral College via an article from History News Network Dot Org. The article relates to the common historic perception (very much promulgated view US historians and writers) that the Electoral College was developed as a barrier to tyranny. A decent thought considering the given reason for the US revolution (small "s" intentional and colonial insurgent (national) separation from England.

Wise introductory remarks excerpt:
 ....was created to PREVENT tyrants, because of something Hamilton said in Federalist 68...but putting aside how quick folks are to praise anything Hamilton said (especially if he rapped it), please recall, Federalist 68 wasn't written before the EC was adopted at the Constitutional Convention. The history of the convention makes it clear what its real purpose was. 
Tim Wise via Facebook: (click image for full article)



NPR also published a video segment on the Electoral College.



A few items to contemplate? As you think about the matter also factor-in the reality of an electoral system which appears to work to elect Republicans at a desparate rate. 

StumbleUpon