WHO WON THE 2017 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

                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.