Editor,

One citizen. One vote. But it needs to count. We must stop all manner of subverting our democracy including the abolishment of the Electoral College which has as proven to be the provocative back door to steal elections from the American people.

We’ve stooped too low to continue with a mechanism which presumes honor. We must take action now — tell our legislators to pass the national popular vote.

Robert Cibrario

Half Moon Bay

Recommended for you

(21) comments

Ray Fowler

Tafhdyd

Yikes! I was out until late and did not get back to you, yesterday. On this one, it looks like we will have to go back to our own corners...

Yes, Donald trump does and says things I don't like, and I agree that we should look at actions not words. With respect to racism, the liberal readers who contribute to this forum repeat charges of racism against the president yet do not square those charges against his actions that support and affirm the black community.

Good biographies help us understand the past and who we are today. They are also instructive. I am reminded of George Wallace. He did finish his walk on earth as the same man that blocked the doors at the University of Alabama. Ray Bob says, "check it out."

Is Trump the same person described in your previous reply? I don't think so. How do you account for things like lowering unemployment, initiating prison reform, offering school vouchers, and supporting pro-life measures that have a huge and positive impact on the black community? If he has changed... unlike George Wallace... he has not asked for forgiveness. And he probably never will. That would be one of those things he does that I don't like...

I don't see how the actions of governors in Ohio, Texas and Missouri can be laid at the president's feet. I'm sure he welcomes their tough stance on the mechanics of voting, but he did not order those policies. Mail in ballots... not a perfect system. Millions of ballots have been misdirected since 2012. The concern is valid. Then there is the actual handling of mail in ballots. Are you sitting down? Last March, in a primary election, over 100,000 mail in ballots were rejected... in California. Again, the concern is valid.

When it comes to tallying votes, "... no matter how close the election may turn out to be, those who lose accept the verdict and support those who win." Who said that? Richard Nixon in January 1960 as he affirmed in the Senate the 1960 election results. Now, if anyone can argue that an election might have been rigged, it's probably him. That would be a intriguing debate.

Tafhdyd

Good afternoon Ray,

We will stay in our own corners for sure on this one. I will touch on a few of the subjects just for general info purposes, not to convince you otherwise.

As for mail in ballots and the 100K rejected, 70K were not postmarked in time or received after the 3 day acceptance limit. If you vote by mail you have to mail it on time, no argument there. ( I won't comment on the possible problems with the post office.) Almost all of the remaining 30K were rejected due to missing or improper signatures and mistakes on the ballot. People errors, not fraud as Donald would try to have you believe.

On prison reform Donald did sign the act but it was not his idea and word is he was opposed to it until Jared convinced him based on his own fathers prison time experience. Bi-partisan support for similar bills under a variety of names have been in and out of congress for 12 years or more.

Unemployment has been declining for ten years since Obama salvaged the economy from GW.

Vouchers are not the panacea that anti public education Betsy would have you believe.

Pro-birth measures are are only a bone for him to toss to the rabid evangelicals that make up a large part of his base and care nothing for anything other than that one issue.

Until another discussion presents itself, have a nice afternoon.

Ray Fowler

Terence

Ah... My name is Ray Fowler, Jr. You can call me Ray or you can call me Ray J or you can call me R J... but you don't have to call me Mr. Fowler.

Ray Fowler

Oops... sorry, Jorg. I finger slid off the keyboard and skidded across the galaxy after glancing off the wrong key sending a partial message.

Thanks for the reply. I get your point. Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton all received more votes than their opponents but none crossed over the 50% mark. The exception to the rule would be Samuel Tilden. He received almost 51% of the votes cast, and Tilden may have actually had the edge in the Electoral College but Democrats gave the 1876 election.

Hillary Clinton received more votes but lost in the Electoral College. With that outcome possibly looming next month, I'm not surprised to hear liberal voters calling for the dismantling of the Electoral College.

My last thought on the Electoral College... Democrats may get their wish without abolishing the EC. Presently, a presidential candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes to secure an election. In 2012, that meant if a candidate could win the 11 most populous states, he or she will win the presidency. 11 state popular vote + EC votes = victory. Wow… capturing 11 of the most populous states! Can that happen? Yes. Barack Obama prevailed in the top 8 of our 11 most populous states when he won in 2012. He only needed 21% of the remaining 337 Electoral College votes to secure the presidency. He easily got those votes, and became president. What about 2016? Donald Trump won 7 of those same top 11 most populous states to capture 150 Electoral College votes, but he had a steeper hill to climb. He needed 31% of the remaining 388 Electoral College votes to win, and he got the votes he needed.

So, calls to abolish the Electoral College are unnecessary because with broad based appeal and smart campaigning, a presidential candidate can carry the Electoral College. That's the way it's been since 1804.

Ray Fowler

Jorg

Thanks for the reply. I get your point. Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton all received more votes than their opponents but none had a majority of all votes cast. The exception to the rule would be Samuel Tilden. He received almost 51% of the votes cast, but Democrats gave the 1876 election awa

Terence Y

And down the rabbit hole we go… again. There were plenty of sore losers stirring up this nonsense after Trump was elected in 2016. Thanks to Mr. Fowler for his succinct explanation of why the national popular vote idea is dead on arrival. We all know that had a national popular vote been in place, Trump would have campaigned for the national popular vote and still would be your great President Trump. When Trump wins the national popular vote this time, what’s the next rabbit hole? Reducing the black vote to 3/5 of a person? Oh wait, increasing to 5/3 a person?

Tafhdyd

Terrance,

You have the idea but wrong rabbit hole. If Trump is elected he will try and finish the job the Republicons started of voter suppression. There won't be any black votes if he can get his way.

Ray Fowler

Hi, Tafhdyd

Hmmm... voter suppression? Seems like the smattering of ballot irregularities reported in the media recently have worked against Republicans.

But I'm curious... why would Donald Trump discourage black voters from casting their ballots for him?

I know, I know... the left says Donald Trump is a racist. However, based on lowering unemployment rates in black communities, initiating prison reform that offsets sentencing requirements sponsored by Joe Biden, advocating for school vouchers for black children, and supporting a pro-life position which can have a huge impact on the black community (23 million of the 60 million abortions performed since Roe v Wade have been unborn black children which means a segment of the US population that comprises less than 14% of Americans accounts for nearly 38% of all abortions)... how can the statement, "There won't be any black votes if he [Trump] can have his way" be supported?

Tafhdyd

Hello Ray,

Voter suppression and racism under trump and the right wing is not hard to describe. Starting with Trump being a racist I will say I don’t see it as the left only calling him a racist. I see is as actions speak louder than words. Both him and his father paid large fines for discrimination in housing and he has said he is all for immigration of people from Norway but not from sh##hole countries.

As for voter suppression Trump has harped on voter fraud since the day he was elected and even set up an investigating committee for voter fraud that disbanded a few months later because they could find none. Now he is harping on mail in ballots that also have not shown any measurable degree of problems and have been used by many states for several years. The Ohio Republican SOS limited ballot drop boxes to one per county at the county election site only, regardless of the number of voters. Texas Gov. Abbott just did the same and is limiting drop boxes to one per county. Harris county is 1700+ sq. miles and 4.5 million population with ONE drop box. San Mateo county is about 700+ miles and about 800K population with drop boxes at most every city hall and county office. A few weeks back one of the midwest primaries in a large predominately black area (St. Louis maybe) had one in person polling place for several hundred thousand people. If you don’t call that voter suppression we have a completely different understanding of the word.

I am short on time today and I will sit out the abortion issue but will say that while black unemployment is at all time lows they are also earning less and the wage gap between them and white workers is increasing.

Have a nice evening and I don’t recall if you prefer shaken or stirred but I will have mine on the rocks tonight.

Terence Y

Grandpa Taffy Dave! More false narratives promulgated by the Dimmocrats. How many Dimmocrats passed the amendment giving blacks the right to vote? None. I guess we know which party wanted to suppress black votes. And it’s not IF Trump is elected, he WILL be elected again as your great Captain America.

Tafhdyd

Terence, it has been explained to you many times before by myself and others and you don't understand so I won't waste time explaining it to you again.

Jorg

So, you still want a certified idiot in the WH? Haven't you learned a thing yet, - not even from the most recent events?

Terence Y

Nice try Grandpa Taffy. In the real world, up isn’t down, north isn’t south, the moon is not made of cheese, and Democrats are not Republicans. Explain things using verifiable facts and you won’t have any problems with explanations.

And Jorg, we’re in the year 2020. The certified idiot, Treasonous Obama, is no longer in the WH. Your current candidate, brain-dead Biden isn’t much of an improvement. You shouldn’t drink and post – you sound more confused than usual. Just as bad as Grandpa Taffy.

Tafhdyd

I do use facts Terence. That is why you don't understand the comments.

Ray Fowler

I'm not so sure that abolishing the Electoral College will yield the one citizen, one vote system you are seeking.

If Congress moved an amendment to the states, it would need 38 states to approve the measure before it could be added to the Constitution. If all 21 states with 10 or more electoral votes approved the proposal, you would need 17 of the remaining 29 states with 9 or less votes to agree. That could be a steep hill to climb. Maybe because votes in those 29 states could be devalued. Abolishing the Electoral College could mean the votes of the truck driver from Utah, the school teacher in Kansas, and the out of work miner in West Virginia really don't count as much as votes cast by voters on either coast.

Jorg

I don’t understand your logic in the last sentence, Ray! Without the EC, each vote would count the same towards the overall total, wouldn’t it? How could there be a difference? With the EC, on the other hand, Republican votes in California don’t count at all. Neither do Democratic votes in red states. What’s fair about that? And, let us not forget, that the EC gave us both Bush jr. and Trump! What’s good about that?

Ray Fowler

My dear friend, Jorg

Hey, buddy! We had this same discussion almost two years ago...

You are a staunch proponent for abolishing the Electoral College. That makes sense to you. I just disagree with your position. You have decided that eliminating the Electoral College will make sure that every vote counts equally and that the majority will determine the outcomes of future elections.

Let's look back at the 2016 election. Your candidate received more votes than all other candidates on the ballot in California plus all candidates in eight other states plus the District of Columbia. So, one presidential hopeful in one state had a greater influence over a national election than the voters in nine other jurisdictions. Without an Electoral College system, allowing the outcomes from a handful of states in a national election does not appear to let every vote count equally.

If the Electoral College was eliminated, you would not necessarily achieve your result of a candidate being swept into the Oval Office with a majority of votes cast. It would allow, however, a large political party to win with a plurality. That means more voters chose someone else, but the candidate with the most votes won without a majority. Yes, we have had presidents elected with a plurality instead of a majority in the past. Let's look back at the 1992 election. Bill Clinton was elected with a plurality (43%) of votes cast, but he easily won the Electoral College vote (69%). I'm sure you would agree that even though a larger number of voters preferred a different candidate, Bill Clinton's confirmation by Electoral College tallies made the process much more democratic.

Finally, abolishing the Electoral College may lead to some unintended and undesirable consequences. It can lead to one-party rule. That means a single party... with election victory successes based on pluralities... would have a greater influence on elections even though that party did not have majority support.

Interesting... the liberal side of the aisle complains about the Electoral College when things don't break in its favor but those same voices are strangely quiet when their candidate is affirmed by the Electoral College.

Jorg

I get your point, Ray, but the fact remains that both Clinton and Obama had the most popular votes, in addition to EC majority, both times. President Obama even had a comfortable majority vote and a landslide EC, both times. I find that much more reassuring than the way Bush and Trump “won”, without having the most votes.

Terence Y

Unfortunately, Mr. Fowler, Jorg will conveniently forget your discussion tomorrow, or next week, or the next time the EC is discussed in an LTE if it’ll advance his faulty narrative. Thank you, Mr. Fowler, for educating readers about the EC and why it will never be changed. You have to be impressed by the folks who wrote the Constitution.

Christopher Conway

Robert- when you say abolish the Electoral College, who are you talking to?

Ray Fowler

Good morning, Chris

Yes, that's a good question. I'm guessing Robert is referring to the two-thirds majority vote required in the House and Senate before moving an amendment forward. There is a provision for state legislatures to propose an amendment, but that has never happened. So, like I said, I guess Robert is exhorting Congress to start the process to abolish the Electoral College.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

Please purchase an Enhanced Subscription to continue reading. To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.

We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.

A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!