The Majority Rules - Except When it Doesn’t

Every once in a while, someone brings up the whole “let’s get rid of the Electoral College” shtick. Because, as you know, the popular vote is the desired method for those living in California and New York; states that feel they alone should determine the outcome of every Presidential election. And of course, that outcome should always be a Democrat.

Before I get into this too far, let me be clear: I’m not a Republican. I’m not a Democrat. I belong to the largest voting block: Independents. In other words, I don’t belong to a minority party. Also, I voted for the person I felt best fit the job requirements for President. I didn’t vote based on gender, or whether or not the person was racist, sexist, or any other -ist. And I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

Now that that is out of the way…

The complaints concerning the Electoral College are from Democrats. The reason is that in most elections, they win the popular vote. Seldom does a Republican win the popular vote. Again, refer to the comment about California and New York in the first paragraph (both HEAVILY Democrat-voting states). If you remove both of those states, Republicans would normally win the popular vote.

The major difference between the two is that with the Electoral College, votes are not strictly based on population. This keeps the playing field level. Or, in a word that the Democrats prefer (in all areas EXCEPT voting), "fair". With the popular vote, the majority voice wins. And why the Democrats prefer it confuses me.

You see, Democrats believe that the minority voice should supersede the majority voice. The number of individuals that consider themselves LGBTQLMNOP, for example, are an EXTREMELY small percentage of the population, but their “feelings” should supersede the “feelings” of the rest of the country who, ironically, fall into Darwin’s preference for evolutionary success.

(Oops, sorry. I made the cardinal sin of dropping a little science here - and the only science that counts is what the liberal establishment considers valid - you know, like man-made climate change for example.)

So, to wrap this up, I feel that Democrats should be grateful that the Electoral College exists, and should quit whining over the popular vote. Because, in their mindset, the majority voted for Hillary Clinton, so they should be happy that Donald Trump won.

Or, to be even more accurate, Gary Johnson or Jill Stein should have become President.

But that would probably be taking things a bit too far…

© Emittravel 2018

Independent Influence

I’m really looking forward to the Primary reality show season to end.

As an independent voter, the whole shtick has little appeal for me. It won't be until after the primaries have concluded, and the general election commences, that I will devote any brain synapsis to the process. Until then, blah blah blah . . .

I've often thought how wonderful it would be to get rid of the whole party system. (Don't worry college kids, I'm talking political, not frat.) You know, come out and disband them. But that will never happen. Oh, you could have something happen to eliminate both major yahoos, but eventually sheep of like minds will herd together again. It's inevitable. And one major reason for this is "influence".

It has been said that an independent will never be elected President. I disagree. An independent can be elected, but they might as well spend their term(s) flying around on Air Force One. They will get nothing accomplished. Why? Because Congress is made up of sheep in herds.

One reason John McCain didn't get elected was that he was neither a good Republican, nor a good Democrat. He carried the party affiliation of Republican, but he spent so much time working "across the aisle" that neither side ended up trusting him. There is no such thing as nonpartisan in government. It is a fancy word for one party submitting itself to the other for the benefit of hopefully getting the other party to submit to themselves the next time.

A truly independent President would get nothing accomplished. First off, that person would forever hold the honor of "stealing votes" from the other parties - denying them the Presidency. And second, if the independent President worked with one party, the other party would be slighted and not work with him. And if that President then worked with the other party, then the first would be slighted. And then? See the above paragraph.

I've heard that Donald Trump, currently running under the Republican banner, is threatening to clean House once he gets in office. That he will publicize the corruption - i.e. "financial influence" - in Congress. You know, point out who has ill-gotten gains. And I believe this. He has said that he had given money to Hillary Clinton's previous campaign because he is a business man, and he knows how the system works (if Hillary got in office . . . ). He said he has given to both parties for the same reason. He admits to "financial influence" being the norm.

If Donald Trump becomes President, he will be a lame-duck President from the get go. Not only will he not be a Democrat. Not only will he have gotten the election in spite of the GOP (they are even threatening a brokered convention to get rid of him - which means they WILL hand over the general election to the Democrats - and that is historically true). He will piss off Congress enough that neither party will work with him. He might as well be an independent candidate.

But come on, reality shows aren't REAL, right?

©Emittravel 2016