- Guest commentary
- Hillary Clinton won nothing relevant to being president
- Additional analogy
The following guest commentary is by Eugene Mattecheck, Jr. whose contributions to the letters to the editor of the Argus -Dispatch we have admired for some time. We think it important to continue to set forth solid arguments in response to unrelenting denigration of Trump’s election victory based on 1) allegations about Russian influence on the integrity of the voting process which has been denied by law enforcement agencies 2) the unproven but irrelevant claim that Russians hacked e-mails of the DNC, and 3) the profound ignorance on display as regards our electoral system used to propagandize in favor of the so-called popular vote for the presidency. As regards the latter, Gene wrote an excellent item that appeared yesterday in the A-D and which he expanded on in conversation later (see below).
Many seem ignorant of nation’s election process
The USA has chosen its 45th president, yet many seem ignorant of our election process.
For example, it’s purported Hillary “won” the national “popular vote.” She did not. Could not. There is no nationwide “popular vote” contest for the presidency.
Per our Constitution, every four years we simultaneously hold 51 separate state-run (plus DC) elections for president. Each state has its own number of electors, mirroring it’s representation in Congress. California has 55, Illinois 20, Iowa 6, many only 3. The winner of any state’s “popular vote” is awarded that state’s electoral votes. There’s no bonus for winning a state by a wide margin. There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs in 51 contests; 270 are needed for election.
Candidates know our system, planning their campaigns accordingly.
On Nov. 9th, Donald Trump won the “popular vote” in 30 different states totaling 306 electoral votes. Hillary won in 20 plus DC, for 232. He’s president-elect.
The aggregate of the combined states’ “popular vote” is nothing more than a statistic, having no constitutional relevance. It lets pundits/malcontents fill dead air in the 24 hour news cycle.
Our republic and Constitution aren’t antiquated, but testament to the founder’s genius and foresight. They eschewed raw democracy, thinking it “mob rule.” Our Electoral College method for electing presidents is going nowhere; fast.
If public schools did a better job teaching the Constitution, this letter would be unnecessary.
Eugene Mattecheck, Jr.
In conversation with EM he also made the effective analogy regarding sports series and the relevance of point totals in the presidential election process. Basically, total points are NOT the name pf the game.
Picking “University of Chumpsville” football as an example of attempting to parlay total points as indicative of anything relevant to being champion, Gene points out that if U of C fails to win the individual victory requirements, it loses the season. No matter how many statistical points are scored, by concentrating on rolling up scores in virtually uncontested games, (analogous to California popular vote), they don’t win the championship. Slogging it out in the series of contests, even if each contest (state election) proves to be a one point margin is how U of C must play to win the game. To reiterate, one must win more individual games in the series than anyone else to be champion, it matters not how many total points were scored in the process. We agreed it is not a perfect analogy in that in the electoral process games are waited by size, but the common football strategy of which games to risk injury or play the top players (resources) applies and the main point is valid, total points are not decisive.
