Today December 20, 2019, in a NYT Opinion piece entitled: The Tyranny of the 63 million, by Michele Goldberg berates the Republicans who have “fetishized” the 63 million votes cast by Trump supporters in the 2016 election. What seems to stick in her craw beside her rabid hatred for Trump and “old white men” and the “structure of the American democracy which gives disportioncate power to a declining demographic” old white guys —is the fact that the old white guys refer to the 63 million as “the people”. The Times’ rabid, man-hating author object to the idea these are the voters who would in effect suffer disenfranchisement as a result of the Democrat hysterical rage, impotence and low progesterone driven drive for “impeachment”. Goldberg reminds the reader that Clinton won far more votes—almost 66 million vs Trump’s 63 million as if she deserved to win and did not.
But what Ms Goldberg does is ignore our National Geographic reality. Our nation is physically expansive and geographically diverse. Those who live beyond the coastal urban bubbles with its huddled masses of very recent immigrants—where this author seemingly resides— have different values and ways to pursue “life, liberty and happiness”. They have different economic exigencies. They have just as much right to their government’s attention as those who live within the coastal megopolis on our east and west shores. They send their children to fight our wars and pay their taxes and are not less deserving.
The Founders wisely understood these facts as well as being aware of the dangerous potential for political instability in attempting to govern a regionally large, economically and culturally diverse nation based on the overwhelming voter assent from only a tiny percentage of its national area. They wisely devised a fair system which insures that any elected president would have to have wide geographic appeal. Ms Clinton did not pass that test.
Much of the dissatisfaction and resulting political turmoil of the last election is based on the misperception about the fact that Mr. Trump did not win the popular vote. But that is not how our President is chosen.
Had Ms Clinton been elected based the popular vote—think of it—she did win 3 million more votes out of the 129 million cast, or 2 more votes out of every 100 cast. But her plurality was not evenly distributed over the nation. She would have been elected as a result of her popularity in only a few counties around New York City and Los Angeles. Why should those urban areas, uncharacteristic of the nation as a whole both culturally and economically have such a powerful effect on who we chose as our chief executive? Her mandate to govern would have been very limited. Most of the nation was opposed to her and her policies.
On the other hand President Trump won 304 Electoral College votes to Hillary Clinton’s 227. He turned the nation red by winning 2,649 counties vs Clintons 503, or a better than 5 to 1 ratio. Her support—as is all the Democrat support—concentrated in the densely populated coastal urban centers and in the parts of our southern border regions and California where 22 million illegal immigrants in this nation tend to congregate.
The problem of illegal voting among those 22 million is underplayed and underreported by our main stream media, but it does not take a mathematic genius to calculate the possibilities for voter fraud among 22 million non citizen individuals who in many border states have permanent residences, drivers licenses, electric bills, and many other evidences of residence—- except a birth certificate or naturalization document. Three million illegal votes cast out of 22 million is only one out of every seven illegal immigrants taking the opportunity to vote illegally as a way of supporting the political party that is likely to continue its support of their precarious illegal residence in USA,
No comments:
Post a Comment