The hunt is on for Hillary's win

E.  Ablorh-Odjidja

November 14, 2016

First, blame it on the electoral college.  Hillary Clinton didn't lose.  She won the popular vote.  Second, hit the streets in protest.

So leftist thugs from states that Hillary won - California, New York and Oregon - hit the streets the day after the elections to enforce the message.

Had Hillary won, the Electoral College would not be the issue.

They say the popular vote should count because Hillary won that.  Based on that wish alone, two states out of the 50 could have made her the victor in the 2016 Presidential Election.

But wait a minute to consider the havoc.

California and New York, two of the three most populous states, would have decided the elections by a differential of some 4 million votes. What would this mean for the rest of the country?

The question forces one to wonder whether the protests against Trump were thoughtful, organic or purposefully organized to deny him legitimacy.

The rule before the elections was that the Electoral College was the decider,  as always as it has been since it was crafted in 1787.

Antiquated?  No, just brilliant! 

As consequence of this rule by the Constitution, Trump won.  And is the president-elect, with or without the popular vote.

But the cry for presumptuous change of the result via the unlawful popular vote system pointed out something else:  the deep letdown of the losers and the character of the little minds who cry for democracy without knowing how to protect it.

Liking or not liking Trump is not the issue here.  But some wouldn't know or care.

The Trumpsters were called “dumb and uneducated”  immediately the results were known, which prompted one to ask what the smart set were doing when the "dump" ones were voting for Trump.

Simply stated, the smart set didn't know how to win because they read the whole scenario of America wrong.

So no use calling the Trumpsters racists either.  They knew how to work the Electoral College for victory.

The Electoral College is a marvel of a vast, brilliant political design; purposefully conceived to hold together the benefits of the representative republic that is America.

It provides a mix of popular participation in-states but still upholds the interests of the federal government by giving the less populous states some leverage within the system.

Thus, it is also able to preserve the concept of representative democracy by holding in check the electoral abuses that the more populous states can inflict on the less populous, smaller states.

Consider the mayhem the popular vote can cause for the union:

As said, two states alone in the union could have swung the victory for Hillary in the 2016 election . California and New York.

The above two are three of the most heavily populated states in America; also the most demographically variable since they are magnets for immigrants.

California, for instance, gives illegals access to driver's license, healthcare coverage for their children and in-state tuition. 

Some new arrivals  in these liberal states  manage to vote, by fair or foul means, and they are easily impressed by the Democrat party and its lax welfare state policies. 

Given this condition, and with almost loose verifications for citizenship at some polling station, why would these states not be the "world-bank" for Democrat votes?

The votes, at election time, with a minimum of two political parties contesting, are meant to protect American institutions. 

These are the institutions that guard the ideals of freedom, tolerance and the opportunities for the variable life choices that make life in America attractive for the immigrant.

America, each year and despite its advertised faults, still attracts more immigrants from all parts of the World than the rest. They come to America to better their life chances.

It should, therefore, be in the immigrants interest to preserve some of the ideals that attracted them here - the same ideals, the lack of which pushed them out of their countries of origin.

This is not to say, America is paradise.  It is to note the perils at the ballot when exposed to political sensibilities and whims from other lands. 

Parts of the world are used to the cry of "one man one vote" system and its consequential strives that sometimes end in coups. 

The new arrival in America is yet to understand  that the Electoral College system, in great measures,  is a better bulwark against these strives than the popular vote in the country he has fled from.

In America, 270 electors out of 530 elect the president and Vice President. 

Trump had 306 electors to Hillary's 232.  Despite the protests in the streets, Trump won. Hillary didn't. 

Again, popular vote or not, the Electoral College has decided! (Check, 3 million illegal votes cast in 2016 election)

Conceptually, the infrastructure of the Electoral College is simple.  Electors are decided by size of population in a state as reflected in its Congressional representations.

The largest state, California, has 55 electors and the smallest ones 3 each to make up a total of 530 electors for all the states and for the whole nation.

Thus each state has a proportional stake in the election game.  

With the 530 electors spread throughout the United States, this electoral map forces a potential presidential candidate in a campaign to pay attention to all states in the union so as to build his or her total of 270 electors for victory at the end.

As good as this design is, it will be naive to assume at this stage that there is no corruption within states in the American political system. 

All the malpractices found in a Third World system exists in America too.  The over-vote counts, ballot stuffing, political manipulations, bribery and sheer intimidation exist here within states.

Thankfully, the Electoral College limits these practices to within states.

It acts like sandbag to provide barriers against voter pollution spills from state to state; a feat a direct popular vote system couldn't do.

So California and New York, in spite of their overwhelming vote for Hillary, were limited to their absolute given numbers of electors -  55 for California and 29 for New York. 

Assuming there were voter corruptions in these states, they would be contained there by the number of the electors already assigned by virtue of the Electoral College system.  And no amount of questionable acts could make a difference in the final elector count in the individual state..

In plain English, any number past a plurairty winning point in a state, even in millions, would not make a whiff of a difference to the absolute elector count for that state.

I think there is a lesson here for Ghana and other nations that use the popular vote system.

 Imagine the Electoral College effect in Ghana. 

The  "world bank" constituencies in the country would have very limited influence on elections. Paying and importing nationals from adjoining nations to vote would not matter much because no matter the number you bring in, in addition to the ballot-stuffings, you will still be limited to an absolute, predetermined number of electors per constituency!

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Publisher www.ghanadot.com, Washington, DC, November 14, 2016.
Permission to publish: Please feel free to publish or reproduce, with credits, unedited. If posted at a website, email a copy of the web page to publisher@ghanadot.com . Or don't publish at all.