Editor,
FACTS: The last two Republican White House occupants were selected by the Electoral College, not by a majority vote, which means that fewer voters wanted those two, than the majority, who preferred someone else, namely Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016.
COST: In 2000, George W. Bush let 9/11 happen, despite all warning signs, before lying us into two unnecessary, unwinnable wars, guided by an imaginary voice inside his head. Bush even found it necessary to halt the very promising stem cell research, a field in which we were a world leader, just to mention a few of his blunders. In 2016, to summarize Donald J. Trump’s wrongdoings, would require a whole book. Among many written, perhaps none gets more intimate than Liz Cheney’s “Oath and Honor,” both because she was an insider of great power, and originally a Trump voter. While the concept of “infinite” is imaginary, we can not imagine all the damage caused by Trump, which we can safely say is infinite, which means impossible to measure or calculate!
BENEFITS: 0
And you don’t need to be much of a mathematician to know that anything divided by 0 amounts to infinite. Infinite is an imaginarily large number, and so is the cost of what Trump has done, and still does.
Jorg Aadahl
San Mateo
Please purchase a Premium 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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(28) comments
In 2016, to summarize Donald J. Trump’s wrongdoings, would require a whole book." this is the typical head in the sand ideological statement that every democrat writer uses as an attempt to dismiss Trump. Consequently Jorg makes another empty statement
Since you apparently don't watch real, reliable, news, have you even ready any of all the books written about many of Trump's wrong-doings? I guess not.
To keep emphasizing that all elections in the past were settled by the EC, is an attempt to hide the fact that most elections in the past resulted in presidents supported by the majority of voters, like both Obama and Biden in more modern times, in sharp contrast to the last two Republican EC-selected WH-occupants that have caused so much damage, and still keep doing long after kicked out of an office they were both ill-suited for.
Let me make it perfectly clear: I want the majority to prevail when electing POTUS, whether my preference is the winner, or not. In a democracy, as we claim to have, each vote should have exactly the same impact on the total, not the minority votes in each state being scrapped, like the EC dictates.
Instead of unproductive and silly side-steps, no one has been able to come up with a single positive aspect of the Electoral College! Neither has anyone disputed any of the negative results of EC, - not even any MAGA-hatters with the tightest fit!
Let me make it perfectly clear. Jorg, to keep complaining about the EC when you don’t understand how it works only exposes ignorance on the subject and your position. You may as well give us a lesson on how water doesn’t spill from your flat Earth. Nice try in attempting to restart your losing argument, though it’s become tiresome. Happy National Oatmeal Muffin Day.
So, you didn't understand what I wrote! Well, no huge surprise, I have to admit!
Can someone explain to Jorg that candidates will change their vote getting strategies if the EC were abolished? They would simply go to the states where most votes would be cast in their favor and ignore the small states. These smaller states would, as a result, have no or little say in who becomes the next president. That is the main reason for the EC. But, we could excuse a Norwegian immigrant for being ignorant. Perhaps Jorg needs to take a poly sci course to get updated on US politics.
And that is what you claim justifies the damage we have seen from the last two EC-selected, unqualified WH occupants? You must have “inverted” that one too! What about all the minority voters cut out from participation in the total? How do they feeI, like Republicans in democratically controlled states, and vise versa? I think you have to loosen your MAGA-cap somewhat, Dirk, and let some refreshing air in!
Hey, Terence... and Dirk
Yesterday, Jorg gave up on me, so I will not post anything appended to his commentary. Jorg has asked for some positive effects of the EC. He can check his email for those effects; I have sent them to him many times.
Following multiple rebuttals to his comments objecting to the EC, I have asked him about the negative implications of his FPTP voting system. As you can guess, I am still waiting for a reply. While he recently said he does not care who is elected as long as the successful candidate achieves a majority of all votes cast... do you really think he would embrace such an election of his chief nemesis... DJT?
Nothing I can do about that, Ray! If the majority has spoken, I must accept the outcome, whether I like it or not. I’m fully aware that another DJT-disaster could happen again, provided enough malinformed, uncaring voters participate, with enough voter suppression and other Republican tricks, in addition to foreign influence, preferring someone as easily fooled as Trump, like in 2016.
Whether EC prevails, or not, the majority in each state still will count towards the total. The only difference is that with EC, the minority counts are rejected. What’s the advantage of that? Btw, I’m not the only one to question the validity of this phony EC-setup, which was a shaky compromise from the very beginning.
Whoa! Jorg... please address Dirk's point re: FPTP candidates... "They would simply go to the states where most votes would be cast in their favor and ignore the small states. These smaller states would, as a result, have no or little say in who becomes the next president."
Once again... among the positive aspects of the EC, you'll find it gives a voice to each state. The negative aspects of your FPTP system would be serial elections decided by plurality and the chaos that would ensue... as if DC needed more dysfunction... by a party not supported by a majority of total voters trying to make policy. 'Nuff said.
OK, Ray, - so for a few smaller states to perhaps get a bit more attention during election campaigns, more than justifies all the damage done by the two minority-selected misfits in this century? I guess I have to accept that, - as your opinion!
'Nuff said.
Ray - Jorg is like a dog with a bone. His opinion does not mean anything and will not change our election process in the least. It is as if he is fighting sunset, no matter what he does or says it won't make a lick of difference.
Dirk: I’m reluctantly admitting that you may be right, when you claim I have failed to change the mind of anyone in your cult! I couldn’t even make you understand such simple 3rd grade math that X/0=0/X is wrong, and not only in math, but in opinion exchange as well.
Never take an atheist seriously who cant even at least acknowledge that he cant prove God doesn't exist. When somebody accepts "universal" truths that they cant prove and uses them to put others down - you really gotta question this persons sanity.
That’s as close as you came to grasping the basic point in my LTE, Littlefoot? You have never heard that you cannot prove a negative, in a logical sense? Not that it matters, because believers are beyond questioning their superstition anyway, so why even bother?
Indeed my little Jorg. Why even bother?
You are right, Littlefoot, for a rare change. Superstitious people are usually beyond repair and learning the truth. Too scary, I assume.
Good afternoon, Jorg
Going back more than 100 years ago to ratification of the 19th Amendment and the advent of universal suffrage… every president… Democrat and Republican… has been selected by the Electoral College (EC)… not just “the last two Republican White House occupants…” mentioned in your LTE.
In seven of those twenty-six elections, the candidate who prevailed received less than a majority of total votes cast. You describe such candidates as someone not preferred by a majority of persons casting ballots for president. You seem to prefer a First Past the Post (FPTP) winner take all election for the candidate with a majority of votes cast. While it appears some folks on the left side of the aisle… like yourself… call for the elimination of the EC when Democrats do not prevail, it’s interesting that in those seven elections… Democrats were elected four times without receiving a majority of votes cast, and Republicans were successful three times. In every one of those elections, going back to 1920, regardless of whether the president was elected by a majority or a plurality, the person elected president carried a majority of states. The EC gives a voice to every state; your FPTP system might do so, but it might not.
Rather than criticize the EC, could you tell us why you believe FPTP is better? Please account for such a system that would promote plurality elections. In other words, elections that would be regularly won by a candidate with less than a majority of votes cast. Then, there would be the emergence of single party dominance at the national level. So, a single party with 40% or so national support would be setting policy for a majority of Americans who did not vote for that party.
Neither one of us has a crystal ball, but based on current polling, it looks like the Republican nominee has an edge in the EC… and the popular vote. If that polling actually predicts the outcome of the next election, I'm guessing we won't be talking about the EC this time next year. Of course, the only poll that really counts will be conducted on Nov. 5, 2024.
Ray: What does past history have to do with the problems of this century, most of which would have been avoided if the majority had been allowed to prevail? Or, what part of what I wrote didn’t you understand? Perhaps you can explain the benefits of minorities in each state not being counted towards the total, only the majority, like the EC dictates? I don’t see the benefit, especially not on background of what the disastrous Republican minority-selected have caused in this century?
Thanks, Jorg, for your response.
Past history... you have selectively decried the results of the two most recent EC certified elections that favored Republicans while ignoring the previous five such elections. BTW... Democrats prevailed in four of those previous five elections without achieving a majority of voter support at the ballot box. You're now concerned about the minority of votes tallied in the states? Not really... your FPTP system would only need the votes of a dominant political party... essentially on the coasts... to secure an election if there was no EC. All those votes for a different candidate in the minority would be meaningless.
Now, it's your turn... please account for your FPTP system that would promote plurality elections regularly won by a candidate with less than a majority of votes cast. Plus, it appears you are OK with the emergence of single party dominance at the national level, i.e. a single party with 40% or so national support that would set policies for the majority of Americans who did not vote for that plurality party's candidate.
And if Republicans prevail next November with EC votes and the popular vote, would you still call for eliminating the EC?
Ray: I give up on you, and have no more to say about an issue I made perfectly clear in my LTE, whether you elect to understand it, or not.
Yawn, snore… here we go again. Dear readers:
FACTS: Jorg doesn’t understand how the Second Amendment or the Electoral College works, along with not understanding the definitions of “assault weapon” or “insurrection” or “incendiary” or “credit” to name a few.
COST: An annoying number of throwaway LTE’s and comments telling us how Jorg thinks the 2nd and EC should work that can’t cut the mustard and will never pass muster.
BENEFITS: Negative, although somewhat enjoyable for comedic purposes.
Hey Terence - "along with not understanding the definitions of “assault weapon” or “insurrection” or “incendiary” or “credit”, you need to add "mathematics". Clearly not his forte either.
Dirk: Since you missed the math classes I taught for fellow students in 3rd grade, your home assignment is to explain the difference between Benefit/Cost ratio and Cost/Benefit ratio, and show me that you understand the difference. Don’t be shy about asking for help if you get stuck!
Dear Jorg - one the inverse of the other.
Dirk: You mean: X/0=0/X? Really?!
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.