11-17-2016, 02:37 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-17-2016, 02:42 AM by Eric the Green.)
I would call this election the great outrage to democracy ever. And according to the article I linked to below, even Trump agrees!
from Rebecca Solnit
9 hrs ·
Undemocracy.
"Clinton has already won the popular vote by a dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not go on to be inaugurated as president."
John Nichols writes, "Coverage of the 2016 election campaign confirmed the extent to which major media is more interested in personalities than facts on the ground. The television networks like to declare a “winner” and then get focused on the palace intrigues surround a transition of power. Those intrigues are worth covering. But perspective on the will of the people get lost."
He continues: "Trump will almost certainly stay above the 270 threshold, although he could still lose a state (such as Michigan, where he leads by less than 13,000 votes) or win one (such as New Hampshire, where Clinton is up by around 3,000 votes). The results in a number of battleground states were so close that a shift of around 55,000 votes in three states (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) would align the national popular vote result with the Electoral College result for a Clinton win.
"What is important here is to recognize that there was no Trump mandate, in the popular vote (which he lost by a significant margin) or in the Electoral College (which he won narrowly, thanks to close results that tipped a handful of states in his favor). Notably, Trump’s total fell below 50 percent in the majority of states; he lost 20 states and the District of Columbia, and in at least seven additional states he leads but without a majority of the vote.
IS CLINTON’S POPULAR-VOTE VICTORY UNPRECEDENTED?
"Yes. Clinton has already won the popular vote by a dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not go on to be inaugurated as president."
Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
Her margin is now bigger than the winning margins for John Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
By John Nichols
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillar...l-growing/
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.
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.
Eric's note: Note this little gem from the article:
"The big distinction is between states that do most of their voting on Election Day and states that rely heavily on “absentee” ballots and mail voting. It happens that many of the bigger states that make it easier to vote (at the polls and by mail) are states that favored Clinton."
Sure, and that's one reason they favor Clinton. THEY MAKE IT EASIER TO VOTE. Deliberate attempts by the Republicans to make it harder for non-whites to vote are the reason that Trump is right: THIS ELECTION WAS RIGGED!
Mistrust in democracy fostered by the rigged elections of 2000, 2004 and 2016 do not bode well for respect for our system of democracy in this 4T.
More from the article:
What is important here is to recognize that there was no Trump mandate, in the popular vote (which he lost by a significant margin) or in the Electoral College (which he won narrowly, thanks to close results that tipped a handful of states in his favor). Notably, Trump’s total fell below 50 percent in the majority of states; he lost 20 states and the District of Columbia, and in at least seven additional states he leads, but without a majority of the vote.
from Rebecca Solnit
9 hrs ·
Undemocracy.
"Clinton has already won the popular vote by a dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not go on to be inaugurated as president."
John Nichols writes, "Coverage of the 2016 election campaign confirmed the extent to which major media is more interested in personalities than facts on the ground. The television networks like to declare a “winner” and then get focused on the palace intrigues surround a transition of power. Those intrigues are worth covering. But perspective on the will of the people get lost."
He continues: "Trump will almost certainly stay above the 270 threshold, although he could still lose a state (such as Michigan, where he leads by less than 13,000 votes) or win one (such as New Hampshire, where Clinton is up by around 3,000 votes). The results in a number of battleground states were so close that a shift of around 55,000 votes in three states (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) would align the national popular vote result with the Electoral College result for a Clinton win.
"What is important here is to recognize that there was no Trump mandate, in the popular vote (which he lost by a significant margin) or in the Electoral College (which he won narrowly, thanks to close results that tipped a handful of states in his favor). Notably, Trump’s total fell below 50 percent in the majority of states; he lost 20 states and the District of Columbia, and in at least seven additional states he leads but without a majority of the vote.
IS CLINTON’S POPULAR-VOTE VICTORY UNPRECEDENTED?
"Yes. Clinton has already won the popular vote by a dramatically larger number of ballots than anyone in history who did not go on to be inaugurated as president."
Hillary Clinton’s Popular-Vote Victory Is Unprecedented—and Still Growing
Her margin is now bigger than the winning margins for John Kennedy and Richard Nixon.
By John Nichols
https://www.thenation.com/article/hillar...l-growing/
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.
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.
Eric's note: Note this little gem from the article:
"The big distinction is between states that do most of their voting on Election Day and states that rely heavily on “absentee” ballots and mail voting. It happens that many of the bigger states that make it easier to vote (at the polls and by mail) are states that favored Clinton."
Sure, and that's one reason they favor Clinton. THEY MAKE IT EASIER TO VOTE. Deliberate attempts by the Republicans to make it harder for non-whites to vote are the reason that Trump is right: THIS ELECTION WAS RIGGED!
Mistrust in democracy fostered by the rigged elections of 2000, 2004 and 2016 do not bode well for respect for our system of democracy in this 4T.
More from the article:
What is important here is to recognize that there was no Trump mandate, in the popular vote (which he lost by a significant margin) or in the Electoral College (which he won narrowly, thanks to close results that tipped a handful of states in his favor). Notably, Trump’s total fell below 50 percent in the majority of states; he lost 20 states and the District of Columbia, and in at least seven additional states he leads, but without a majority of the vote.