Preventing A Second Trump Term Only Requires Electoral College Fine Tuning By A Few States.

"Yeah! I'm gonna win in 2020 too, once I get my deplorables back on board!"

In earlier posts I had bruited the use of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution or impeachment to rid ourselves of the malignancy we currently have occupying the White House. I even advocated the abolition of the Electoral College which most of us know won't happen anytime soon. But there is another way, one that is actually more faithful to the Founders' will and also which would be much more practical in ridding ourselves of any conceivable 2nd Trump term.

Let's begin first with a basic statistical fact pertaining to Trump's winning the three "Brexit states" (MI, PA and WI) and how this catapulted the maggot into office. In those three states - which would normally have been blue-  Dotard  amassed 46 Electoral College votes. Note that his cumulative winning popular edge was a bare 107,000 - or enough to maybe just fill the LA Coliseum. Had Hillary Clinton won those three states she'd have garnered 278 electoral votes to win the 2016 election.

But this still misses a more fundamental point, including the media overemphasis on  HRC winning the popular vote by about 3 million. That is, in retrospect,  we see that the Electoral College itself   did not function properly even according to its own logic.  Never mind my earlier (still serious) objections to the Electoral College failing to properly assess an unqualified candidate and allowing him to ascend to the highest office. I referred to this as permitting a "mischief of faction".

No, what I am all about here is that despite everything said about Hillary's reasons (see her book, 'What Happened') for losing the 2016 election, insufficient attention has been paid to the basic fact of an Electoral College malfunction in specific states.  There were 6 states in which Trump won without a majority because there were more than two candidates on the ballot. Without Jill Stein and Gary Johnson's names on the ballot, Clinton might have received more votes than Trump in some of these six states. If she had done so in just Florida and either Pennsylvania, Michigan, or North Carolina, that would have been enough for her to win the White House.

What this means is that Donnie Dotard technically achieved an Electoral College victory without genuinely receiving the support of the electorates in the states responsible for his Electoral College win. But this is exact the opposite of what the creators of the Electoral College had in mind.

This point is germane because there is little  realistic chance of replacing the Electoral College with something different, but there isn’t. And meanwhile, it blinds us to the problem that in 2016, the Electoral College did not function properly even according to its own logic. As long as we are stuck with the Electoral College, we should make it operate as intended.

Here's the skinny:  the Founding Fathers believed each state should ensure that a candidate must not receive its Electoral College votes without support from a majority of its voters. States initially complied with this expectation, because a) it was rational, and b) it issued from the very advice of the Founders.  So who would declare it absurd? . In Massachusetts and New Hampshire, for example, if no candidate won a majority of the popular vote, the legislature would appoint the state’s electors. New Hampshire then switched to a runoff, in which voters cast a second round of ballots if no candidate received a majority in the first round.

In other words, states went the proverbial extra mile to assure one and all that the candidate to be awarded its electoral votes had attained a majority of the votes.  The Founders  understood that an election with multiple candidates (like the 4 in 2016) might produce a winner with under 50% of the votes. But this was an outcome they wanted to avoid, which explains why they insisted that to win a candidate had to receive a majority, and not merely a plurality, of  the votes cast.  If no candidate hit that threshold, then s/he needed to get the support of a majority, and not merely a plurality, of state delegations in the House of Representatives.

None of that transpired in the 2016 election. Trump won with only bare pluralities in those 6 states but still snatched all their electoral votes. That was not cricket, not one bit.  How did we end up with this travesty. this violation of the Founders' will? Well, over time the states adopted a mutation of the original premise, i.e. they.moved to allow a presidential candidate all of a state’s Electoral College votes with only a plurality of popular  votes. This was not only a serious mistake and corruption of the original system but grossly inconsistent with the architects' original vision.

What does it mean?

Just that that state electoral laws must be changed before 2020, lest the maggot in chief somehow squeak through again by horrendous happenstance, or voter apathy.  That requires fixing the state laws that implement the Electoral College system.   Some nervous Nellies may wring their hands and whine "it's impossible!" at the prospect, but not so fast.

The good news is that each state already has the constitutional power to adjust its applicable laws, without the need for a constitutional amendment or some sort of multi-state compact that would not take effect until enough states sign on. In truth, if just a couple of states  (FL, PA) had adopted the necessary fix before last year, Clinton might well be president now.

Conclusion? Forget the 25th amendment getting Trump out, we want his whole cabal out. Also, forget the Electors abiding strictly by their conscience to prevent mischief of faction. That has about as much chance occurring as aliens from Tau Ceti's sixth planet kidnapping Trump and doing  a long overdue lobotomy.

NO, the evident solution is for states to fix their electoral process to ensure it is once more consonant with the Founders will: NO candidate gets all of its electoral votes any more unless he or she wins a majority of the popular vote.

Newsflash: 2016 Election Voting Has Already Begun

 Even as we learned yesterday that Libertarian Gary Johnson further disqualified himself from serious presidential candidate consideration, there was 103 year old Rulene Steineger putting most everyone younger to shame as she pushed her walker to the polls in Iowa. She was one of the earliest voters in a state (among eleven) for which voting is already going on. These  include: Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont and Maine.

As for Rulene,, her reasons for early voting were pretty clear:

"I'm a hundred and three. That's the reason I'm voting early. I'm not taking any chances."

Indeed, and she's made clear her vote is for Hillary Clinton, so she's not taking any chances that  the Trumpster clown will sneak in by even one vote in Iowa - grabbing its electoral stash.  Meanwhile, for the first time in its 34-year history, USA Today's editors have come out against a presidential candidate, writing:

DON'T VOTE FOR TRUMP

"Trump is...by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency".

The paper also referred to a "dangerous demagogue" and a "serial liar' who "traffics in prejudice". With Clinton, the board split, half for half against. The main complaint was "Clinton's sense of entitlement and her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness."

The paper made it clear, however, they were not endorsing Clinton, but "disendorsing Trump'> They are basically okay with voters making any choice other than Donald J. Trump.  Meanwhile, we learn the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (who for some reason many millennial Sanders' voters seem to be attracted to) has now confirmed his status as a clown and dunce.  See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/09/gary-johnson-passes-moronic-wannabe.html

In the most recent iteration, Johnson was asked by MSNBC host Chris Matthews, "Who's your favorite foreign leader?" To which Johnson grew pop-eyed, stared at Matthews and burbled "I...I...I'm having a brain freeze!"  He never could get a coherent response out though at one point he said "the former Egyptian President", but got hoist on his own petard when asked: "Which one?"

Does this guy belong anywhere near the oval office? I don't think so, not if he has to take a crash course in current world leaders and their nations. And certainly not if he couldn't even reference the Syrian crisis city of Aleppo (see previous link).  Yet, despite these major pratfalls, Clinton is still having to dispatch special teams to try and get the younger set on board who appear entranced by Johnson. Well, let's hope they soon wake up. Or as Bill Maher put it two weeks ago< "what the hell are you thinking?"

The general election is technically 39 days away, but in theory could well be decided before then, by virtue of early voting. I already identified eleven states for which it is already going on.  The early voting calendar and provisions, conditions can be found here:

https://www.vote.org/early-voting-calendar/

In all, 37 states and the District of Columbia allow early voting for this general election. Here in Colorado, wifey and I are also early voters - by mail. Colorado being one of only three states that permits mail balloting with no special excuses attached. We decided some years ago to go this route because often Colorado ballots are laden with special district issues and state referenda (this year including Amendment 69 for single payer health care, Amendment 70 to increase the state minimum wage, Amendment 72 to raise cigarette taxes to $2.94 a pack and Proposition 106, the medical aid in dying initiative.) Given the ballot complexity we opted to fill them out at home then mail them in. We will received our mail ballots from 18-22 days before election day, November 8th.  Our votes will be in well before then, signed, sealed and delivered. No traffic hassles, no standing in line - like many poor souls had to do in Florida in 2012, for hours.

Why don't more states offer the convenience of mail ballots and early voting? Who knows? But my suspicion is basically they want  to make it difficult to vote for certain demographic groups they don't trust - such as African-Americans. They have been in the sights of Reeptard gubernators since they helped bring in  electoral wins for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Of course, the primary instrument used for voter suppression is "voter fraud" which has been proven to occur only roughly 0.00000013 % of the time see e.g.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/voter-fraud-real-rare/story?id=17213376

This may or may not be a close "2000 type" election. My bet is that it won't and the plurality of Americans - if they haven't come to their senses after the Monday debate- will vote HRC on election day, especially early voters. In that view, I believe Hillary should have this election sewn up well before November 8th.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/69158/robert-reich-on-this-election-is-a-must-hear

Gary Johnson Passes The Moronic Wannabe Leader Test

It was startling to see a major third party candidate on live television instantly converted into a clueless  moron. In this case, Gary Johnson - the Libertarian candidate- yesterday  on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe', got this question from Mike Barnacle: "What would you do, if elected President, about Aleppo?"

Johnson suddenly appeared pop-eyed and asked: "What's Aleppo?"

To which Barnacle replied:  "Are you serious?"

Because every sentient being with a consciousness somewhat higher than a kindergartner's knows Aleppo is a besieged city in Syria  and the epicenter of a humanitarian crisis. Indeed, tens of thousands have been killed there after five years of the Syrian Civil War.  Yet Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, and the Libertarians' presidential hopeful - didn't know that.

On the dooofus scale for presidential disqualification, Johnson's answer puts him on a par with Ben Carson, who in one forum (in 2015) suggested the Baltic states (Croatia, Slovenia etc.) were not part of NATO.  His faux pas also rivals that of Rick Perry who - in a 2012 debate, failed to recall the DOE (Dept. of Energy)  as one  of the main federal agencies.

Let us agree then, that for any given forum - whether formal presidential debate, or even informal appearance on cable TV, there are certain "deal breakers" in terms of  candidate's fitness for office. One of these is failing to exhibit knowledge of basic current events especially in relation to existing world problems, crises or global policies. On this score, Johnson failed the leadership test just as Carson and Perry did earlier.

Johnson attempted to explain his reaction by later saying he "understood the significance of Aleppo but blanked out".  Now, let's process this, please. He is claiming that in an informal setting, on an early morning cable TV  show - usually watched by fewer than 1 million - he lost command of his brain for the duration and reverted to a default zombie condition..

One is then led to ask, assuming Johnson were to actually become President, what we might expect if he had a face off with Vladimir Putin at a high powered meeting on one crisis or other. And let's say Putin asked him point blank what he and his administration intended to do about the Chechen terrorists? Would Johnson "blank out" just then and ask "What's a Chechen?"  Subsequently correcting himself and saying "I know the significance of Chechnya but I blanked out?"  What do you suppose Mr. Putin would think? (Apart from wondering how Americans could be so stupid as to elect this guy to be President.)

Or, suddenly the nation is under nuclear threat from China and the Joint Chiefs advise going to Defcon 2. Will Johnson then blank out and ask: "What's Defcon 2?"  Then, after it's too late blurt out "I REALLY did understand the significance of defcon 2  but blanked out!"

You see where I am going with this? The excuse of blanking out is no excuse at all, period, because anyone in the position of commander -in -chief simply can't afford to do that. You are no longer an average Joe Citizen allowed the luxury of blanking out, forgetting key information, or falling asleep on the job.  You are now responsible directly for the nation's security as that commander -in -chief so can no longer have the luxury of lapses that might be afforded anyone else.

Johnson's spin is not satisfactory, therefore, and that means while he passes the "moron wannabe leader test' he fails the real leader test.  This comes at a time when Johnson has been trying to raise his profile and meet the 15 percent poll threshold (based on 5 national polls) to secure a spot with Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the debates. Currently, he is hovering at nine percent. One certainly is left to argue  that Johnson's blanking out was perhaps a "mercy killing" for his debate chances. This is given how he'd look blanking out in front of tens of millions if asked, say by Martha Raddatz: "Mr. Johnson, how would you propose to resolve the Spratly Islands dispute with China?"

Even Johnson has acknowledged how he brought himself to such a precarious position. In a different interview yesterday he acknowledged the consequences for a candidate seeming to lack a basic understanding of a major foreign policy issue. He actually  said:

"For those who believe this is a disqualifier, so be it."

Of course, the blatant missteps and interview blunders of one Libertarian presidential candidate will hardly dissuade the high IQ members of Mensa and Intertel from continuing to glamorize Libertarianism as the choice of the brilliant cognoscenti (i.e. that they fancy themselves to be.)  They fetishize this misbegotten ideology because they are anti-statist at the core, and use it as a convenient economic vehicle to denounce everything from taxes for support of social insurance, to climate change. (Not wanting taxes to support gov't research, or have any carbon taxes or rationing.)

But bright though they are, these same high IQ Libbies can't seem to see the paradox of their positions in terms of national governance.  To wit, their entire premise is opposed to any rational and practical governance.  Recall the Libertarian Party Principles state:

“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

This has been further amplified via Charles Murray's statement in What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 6):

“It is wrong for me to use force against you, because it violates your right to control of your person....I may have the purest motive in the world. I may even have the best idea in the world. But even these give me no right to make you do something just because I think it's a good idea. This truth translates into the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”

But if one considers the context,  such a “libertarian principle of governance" emerges as an oxymoron! Governance presumes and demands the non-passive act of governing, which means the projection of force for enforcement of laws including for national security.  Someone is invariably and actively setting standards of expected action, and also providing the means to uphold the standards. In other words, force inevitably backs up governance. Why do you think cities maintain police forces, and the nation a large volunteer standing army - along with assorted weapons to control crowds?  It is to sustain coherent and FORCE-ful governance. The libertarians, then, espouse a philosophy which cannot possibly work in the real world - because that world implicitly recognizes and declares government the primary agent of force, i.e. to enforce laws. Look around for a "force-less" government, i.e. which retains adherence and respect for its laws with no use of force.

If governments aren't enabled to enforce their laws , what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. People can do whatever the hell they want!  Set up sex store emporiums or pot shops next to schools, or sell cocaine  and semi-automatic weapons in open stalls on the sidewalks of major cities!  Freedom thereby becomes perverted into a veritable "free for ALL". In other words, unless governance declares limits to actions - and someone (coercively) enforces governance, a functional society becomes  impossible.

All of this shows that the high IQ Libertarians inhabit a sheltered world of their own with no practical touch points to reality.  In this sense Johnson's blank out breakdown ought to have been a wake up call, but more than likely will just elicit more rationalizations - just as those they've used to defend Ayn Rand.

Thankfully, the chances of Gary Johnson becoming the first Libertarian president are about the same as his forlorn party ever becoming competitive in national politics.