Electoral College a Sham?

After Trump won the election and became our president, (yes, even your president if you are a United States citizen) cries from the left have been shouting out loud ever since. What are they fighting against exactly? Democracy, practicality, and reality.




An imminent uproar followed when citizens discovered Trump not 
only won the electoral college but, apparently, lost the popular vote. Shortly after this current understanding, an article was published by the New York Times titled "The Electoral College Is Hated by Many. So Why Does It Endure?"

Writers of the article, Jonathan and Steve Eder go on to claim that the electoral college is "forever tipping (in favor to) rural/conservative/'white'/older voters". 

My response to that non-credible statement is puzzlement. Do the writers know how the electoral college works? When it comes to presidential elections, American citizens go out to vote every four years. The electoral college consists of 538 electors. Essentially, when voters go to the polls, they will choose which candidate receives their state’s electors. The candidate who receives a majority of electoral votes (270) wins the Presidency.



With this system, everyone gets a say in who ends up in the white house. The only way so-called "privileged" people could have an advantage over others is if they are voting and others are not. Another instance in which an advantage could be displayed is if the population of a state consists mainly of "privileged white folk". If this is the case that the journalists of the New York Times are referring to, how would this be considered an injustice? 

Hillary Clinton herself stated, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people." Very well then, if the people out voting are made up of mostly conservatives, it only makes sense that our candidate is to come out a victor. It only makes sense that citizens exercising their voice in an election through voting are shown clearly in the election results. 

The seemingly ominous electoral college serves many practical purposes. It is in place to prevent the horror of constant recounts that would result in an election consisting of only the popular vote. It exists to prevent an overwhelming advantage to states with large populations. 


Imagine how simple it would be to rig an election if we only counted the popular vote. Warren Mass, a journalist for New American, wrote an article with indisputable proof that 3 million illegals voted in this 2016 election. Not only that; 4 million more people unknowing voted this year. They were not aware of this issue because they were dead!

With the electoral college we have in place, voter fraud such as this will not always count for enough to tip the scales in favor of a cheater in several states. However, the 7 million known cases of voter fraud this election could greatly influence the results in an election consisting of only the popular vote.

It is tragic that cheating has to be taken into account when considering the most practical form of democracy, however, it is still wise to consider that some candidates can and will do anything in order to get into office. 

Now What?

The world watched in complete awe the night of November 8th with the revealing of the United State's 45th president to come: Donald J. Trump. If I am to speak bluntly for a moment, this outcome was so incredibly shocking! I was so ready to accept Hillary Clinton as our next president that I was already learning to say "Please do not shoot me, I did not vote for Hillary" in Russian. Since "Пожалуйста, не стреляйте в меня, я не голосовал за Хиллари" (credit to Google Translate) is a mouthful, you can probably imagine how relieved I was when Trump was elected. 

I was so concentrated on not wanting Hillary to become president that I completely disregarded what would happen if the Trumpinator was to be elected. Alas, Trump gave his victorious speech in New York upon winning, Clinton gave her concessional speech and current president Obama is urging a "peaceful transition of power". 


The obvious question is- what happens in America now that all the mind-blowing events have taken 
place? Clearly much is already happening if one is to take into consideration all the riots in, most recognizably, New York. There are now plenty of news reports featuring rioters that chant "Not my president!" in front of Trump Tower as they blatantly ignore their preferred candidate Hillary when she says, "we need to give Trump a chance".  

Although protests are blasted on the media, America's focus should be on the inevitable Trump presidency that awaits our country. Capital Public Radio has researched and written an article on Donald's plan for his first 100 days in office. In Gettysburg Trump spoke about his 100-day plan describing is as "a contract between himself and the American voter" which "begins with restoring honesty, accountability, and change to Washington". 

A few highlights of "Donald Trump's Contract With The American Voter" would include the following:

The cleaning-up of corruption in Washington, DC:

Trump proposes to minimize degeneracy with term limits. McConnel expressed his opposition to this idea stating "I would say we have term limits now — they're called elections." It is interesting, however, that McConnel, being a member of the senate (which does not have term limits) is against this movement.   

Trump also plans to put a freeze of the federal workforce (exempting military, public health, and public safety). A stop on hiring probably will not make the substantial difference to the economy that Trump wants. What would really affect the status quo is complete removal of corrupt departments. 

Another interesting policy he is proposing is "a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated" This may work wonders for citizen's liberties and be a minimization of government power assuming Trump can pull it off, only removing unnecessary bans.

Trump also plans to work with congress to introduce several border legislative measures which includes the "Middle-Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act". This is intended to simplify tax reduction by giving the middle class a 35% tax cut. At first glance, this seems impossible for our economy to afford. However, Trump may make this possible through repatriation. 
Repatriation is the process of returning something to its place of origin. The U.S. has trillions of dollars sitting in other countries, unused because it will be taxed if brought back to America. Trump's plan is to get that money back with a minimal tax. What happens then is the company to which the money belongs to invest the cash, hire more employees, and increase production. The whole economy can benefit from this. 

Trump seems to have incredible plans for our country- ones I hope the people and congress will support. Only time will tell whether or not he is capable of fulfilling such promises. For now, we must stand together and accept our new presidential elect who claims "if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people. Trump is certainly a fighter and i'd love to see him keep fighting with the nation by his side!

The Doggerel of Desecration

USA Today announced that on July 2016, seventeen protesters were arrested at a flag burning protest outside the Republican National Convention.  Almost immediately, the topic of flag burning became a hot-button issue with sides advocating flag burning as a form of free speech and others against flag burning as it is disrespectful towards a symbol of the United States.

Allow me to establish a brief timeline of the history of flag desecration. By 1932, the adoption of state flag desecration statutes was implemented by all states. Essentially, this was a flag protection movement which was established to prevent commercial and political misuse of the flag.

These laws prevented citizens from placing any kind of marking on the flag and using the flag in advertising. In these establishments, the flag was also protected from defiance, public mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling and contempt either by words or by an act.

Several cases of flag desecration were taken to court since then, most of which fell in favor of the defendants. Such cases include but are not limited to Halter v. Nebraska, West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette and Stromberg v. California. What all the cases had in common was a disregard to what would be considered the established flag desecration restrictions.

It was not until 1989, however, when the most famous case regarding flag desecration took place. Texas v. Johnson, making history as the first time the Supreme Court had directly applied the First Amendment to flag burning, had ruled it unconstitutional to make it a crime to desecrate the flag as a form of free speech.


(right: Johnson, left: attorney)

The American flag is a symbol of liberty, freedom, and human rights. This is why I almost find it laughably ironic that Gregory Johnson, a Revolutionary Communist Representative, was relieved from prison after setting fire to the flag outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas on account of flag desecration being ruled "symbolic speech". It is painfully paradoxical that Johnson and other protesters chanted "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you!" The very fact that protesters have the freedom to dishonor the U.S. flag further illustrates what great liberty it represents. There is something agonizingly poetic about a symbol of freedom being defiled in the act of free choice itself.

Now, 27 years later, protesters stand outside the RNC chanting "five, six, seven, eight, America was never great!" The rioters continue to yell in protest as the flag goes up in flames. To all participants in that rally: America is so prominent in protecting human rights, in fact, that you have the right to informally complain about it.

The objective behind legalizing the desecration of the flag is for citizens to express themselves freely as long as no one is being harmed. In contradiction, almost every record of flag ruination, protesters have been violent, disturbing the peace and assaulting police officers. Are dissidents hiding behind the First Amendment to get away with more violent actions?  Whether it be aggression, derogatory speech or destruction, we the people should recognize that violence is less than ideal and there are more dignified ways to express our beautiful right to speech.



Former Texas Governor Rick Perry eloquently sums up flag desecration saying: "Sometimes, people have some pretty extraordinary ways in which they express their First Amendment right," he said. "That’s not one that I think is particularly thoughtful...Burning something down, whether it’s a flag, whether it’s a home, whether it’s a country, is a poor way to express yourself.”

Democracy or Idiocracy?

Is America's system of government under trial? Andrew Roberts, a concerned British historian, wrote for the New York Times in his article "1776- would you like to reconsider?" stating that "the American primary system, which has thrown up two presidential candidates who are despised by 60% of Americans, is broken and urgently needs to be reformed." 

How is it that 60% of Americans despise our two choices for president when it is those same citizens who took part in voting for them in the first place? Is this out of impracticality? Dismay? Failures in leadership? Democracy?

The United States is an entertainment-driven nation according to the Nielsen Company which states "more than half the homes in America have three or more TV's". As many of us have come to know, television can be an ineffective way to process news if not analyzed properly. A more shocking statistic comes from the Cable News Network which exclaims "Americans spend an average of $70 billion a year on lottery tickets!" It seems the states have become accustomed thrill, playing the lottery, a game of chance. As a result, oftentimes, we tend to choose exciting over practical. This may be a reason we have wound up with very flamboyant candidates for the presidency. 





Another reason that our country may have ended up with this 
unique pair could be out of fear of a specific candidate winning the election. "You do not want Hilla the Hun to win- vote Trump!" You would not want pumpkin Hitler to win- vote Hillary!" How many times have you heard, through word of mouth and figuratively every article on the internet, voting for a third party candidate is obsolete?



Are faulty leaders to blame for the less than ideal options we have to choose from or is it democracy itself that is in need of reform? I have stated before in my previous blog "Argument is the Answer" that our way of government is messy, yet liberating. 

China, on the other hand, appears to be doing extremely well in regards to business, investment, and workforce. Coincidentally, China's president Xi Jinping has been elevated to what they call a "core" leader. This does not give Xi Jinping new powers; it does, however, gives him the solitary authority of the Chinese Communist Party. Seeing that Xi Jinping is a dictatorial leader, the concern of him having too much power does arise. 



The New York Times shows that a Chinese document proclaims “for a country and for a party, a leading core is vitally important”. The autocratic government of China seems successful for the time being. The downfall of a single concentrated power is shown throughout all of history. Over time, an unchecked, unbalanced leader will become corrupt; not looking out for the interest of their people, but considering only their own interests. 

Are both forms of government not to be trusted? I would say that a democracy is essential for the people to be represented. Ironically, the people are very diverse and each individual has to compromise for any law to pass, any candidate to get chosen and any decision to get made. This is why it is important not to compromise too much by settling on matters or candidates we the people undervalue.