AND THE PRESIDENTIAL WINNER IS...
I don’t know about “Fake News” or what people mean by the
term. (Perhaps “news” that presents an
event that did not happen or a story or event that took place but is not really
“news” however it is being used to incite a reaction.)
I can’t be sure what others mean by “Alternate Facts” but in
my life there is such a phenomenon. (EG,
“Red wine is good for a man’s heart thus extending his life.” VS “Too much wine
can lead to alcoholism, liver failure and death.)
I am very confident, however, that news sources use certain
facts that could be considered both “Fake News” and “Alternate Facts.”
Take, for example, this fact that certain news sources like
to inject into news stories: “Hilary
Clinton, who won the popular vote by 3 million votes…yada, yada, yada…” Typically, the fact is used to justify a
disagreement that the news source has with a President Trump action and how
upset Americans have become.
One “Alternate Fact” to this statement is that Hilary beat
Donald by a sum of 4 million votes in just two States: New York and California. In the remaining 48 States she lost a total
of 1 million of those votes. (Remember,
she won the popular vote by 3 million votes.)
Stated in another way, in the 29 States that Hilary lost, she lost by 1
million votes.
Another “Alternate Fact” is that, since we do not elect our
presidents by the popular votes but by electoral votes, Hilary did very poorly
in the 2017 election…except on the coastal States. Hilary actually won only 21 States while
Donald won the remaining 29 States, including nearly all of the “Heartland” and
“swing” states . Because of the States
that Hilary won, she did not have enough electoral votes to win the presidency.
A third “Alternate Fact” is that half of Hilary’s electoral votes
came from only four States: NY, CA, MN
and IL. The other 17 States that she won
produced the other half of her electoral votes.
In other words, on 25% of the States that she won provided 50% of her
electoral votes.
A fourth “Alternate Fact” is that if Hilary had not won in both
NY and CA then she would not have even been in the race.
A fifth “Alternate Fact” is that if the US elected our
president with the popular vote then the President of the United States would
have been elected by only two states:
New York and California. What
this would mean, of course, is that the rest of the country would have no
representation in the presidential election process or the American government (Presidential
Branch) for at least four years.
In my view, at this point in time in my life, the Electoral
College process is genius. It provides
the opportunity for all 50 States to participate in the selection of our
President. It eliminates that
possibility that a minority of states with the largest populations would select
the President and thus determine the fate of the rest of the United States
based upon the desires of those few States.
(Remember the cause of the Boston Tea Party?)
This post has nothing to do with Hilary or Donald. It has almost everything to do with supporting
a balanced representation in our government of all 50 States of the United
States of America, as determined by the Electoral College. This post has something to do with how our “news
sources” (often) attempt to persuade us to accept their version of “news” and
how the world should be.
