The script had been written decades ago and, with the exception of a few bumps along the way – the unexpected upstart half-term senator from Illinois named Barack Obama and an irascible old socialist from Vermont, Election Day 2016 dawned full of hope for Hillary Clinton, a woman who had been aiming for the presidency her entire adult life.

Even without a cohesive message other than “elect me, it’s my turn” or a readily accessible platform besides “I’m a woman,” Clinton looked to finally realize her long-held dream of shattering the glass ceiling that figured so prominently in her speeches and mythology.

Now, more than two weeks after Americans went to the polls and voted in a fair and open election, some of her faithful are still unable to let go of the dream.

In a measure of the desperation of the Democrat party and its inability in its sheer arrogance to overcome the disbelief that Hillary Clinton would be anything other than successful in her quest, some are urging the defeated candidate to protest the results.

University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society director, J. Alex Halderman, has informed Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and its general counsel, Marc Elias, of what they see as possible irregularities on electronic voting machines they believe could have been hacked.

The computer scientists said Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties using electronic voting machines compared to those that used paper ballots and scanners.

While the “experts” admitted they had not seen any actual evidence of hacking, they nonetheless recommend that the pattern be examined by an independent review.

Ironically, it was Clinton and Democrats who savaged Trump after he refused to commit to accepting the results of the election – no matter what they were.

The assumption at the time of the final debate in October when moderator Chris Wallace of FOX News posed the question, was, of course, that Clinton would win.

Many pundits and commentators went so far as to speculate that she would sweep all 50 states in an historic landslide.

Instead, it was Clinton who went down in defeat on Election Day, and although she herself has not raised any issues of irregularities, her supporters have taken the results hard with many marching, rioting and declaring that Trump is “not my president.”

Under the Electoral College system designed by the Framers of the Constitution, the actual election of the president will not officially take place until December 19, 2106 when the electors meet to certify the votes of their state.

Six electors have already announced their intent to disregard the voice of the voters, but laws in 29 states require that the popular vote of the people be honored.

In fact, only those suffering from complete denial believe there is any chance of a challenge to the result being successful.

The strategy, instead, is centered around creating a movement to do away with the Electoral College altogether and replace it with a popular vote, which in the case of this past election would have, in fact, given the United States its first female president.

The Electoral College system was designed to balance the power of the states – large versus small, those with large urban centers versus agrarian, giving the vote of a farmer in Georgia the same weight equally with a banker in New York.

A quick glance of the map on the morning after bears out the wisdom of the Founding Fathers with the Republican red center of the country etched with a fringe of Democrat blue, which in a popular vote system would have meant the votes of a few large cities – New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco – would have overwhelmed the small towns of the entire heartland.

One political analyst has used the map to demonstrate that it is actually possible to drive from the Atlantic to the Pacific without going through a “blue” county.

And those red votes count.

Source: TheHill.com

 

 

 

Send this to friend