To the Editor:

Re: Harlingen reader asserts Republican politics stole presidential election.

It might do the writer, Ron Lowe, and many others, a bit of good to review Article II of the Constitution of the United States.

The popular vote you cast is, for the most part, just a popularity contest. It is not, as you would know if you were familiar with Article II, the vehicle by which the president and vice president are elected.

Article II lays out the Electoral College, what it is and how it works. Several amendments to the Constitution, including the 12th and 14th clarify some of the finer points of the Electoral College.

The last step in the Electoral College process the president of the Senate (the vice president, a Democrat, in fact), in the presence of the Congress opens and causes the votes to be counted

So, you see, the “Republican-controlled Congress” really had little to do with the proceeding.

The Democratic vice president opened and caused the votes to be counted.

And yes, Donald Trump had more of the votes in the Electoral College than Hillary Clinton — he was the president-elect.

All of the rioting, crying and wringing of hands are not going to change that fact. And finally, on Jan. 20, Mr. Trump took the oath of office and became the 45th president of the United States.

I think the Electoral College did exactly what it was designed to do. It kept one large state from affecting the entire election.

Had the popular vote been the decider, Mrs. Clinton would have won by the fact that California would have cast enough votes to give her that 2.6 million-vote win.

But, as I have said, the popular vote is not how elections for president and vice president are decided. California’s electoral votes were not enough to tip the scale from Mr. Trump. Without California, Mr. Trump would have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

At the national, state and local levels, the people spoke and very clearly said that they wanted real change. Change that would, as President Trump says, “Make America Great Again.”

There will be another chance to change the party in power in two years and in four years.

Hal Dudley

Killeen

(4) comments

Alvin
Alvin

This is the personal opinion of this writer.
All 3 of you are correct. That is what the electoral college is all about, But when the electoral college was created there wasn't near the population that there is today. The states had a more evenly spread population than there is today. Even in the early 20th century I don't believe there was the plurality that we have today. There was not the 'imbalance' of electoral votes that we have now. For example, there are electoral votes: California – 55, Florida – 29, New York – 29, and Texas – 38 for a total of 151 electoral votes. Wherein there are only: Alaska – 3, Delaware – 3, South Dakota – 3, Vermont – 3 for a total of only 12 votes. The number I believe was 270 to win. So the point I'm trying to make is 'there is a terrible imbalance of population between the states.
Now if you take the most populates states: California – 55, Texas – 38, Florida – 29. New York – 29, Illinois – 20, Pennsylvania – 20, Ohio – 18, Georgia – 16, Michigan – 16, North Carolina – 15, And New Jersey – 14, you would have 270 votes in only 11 states. What about the other 39 states???
What I am trying to demonstrate here is, 'there is an imbalance, on a state by state level', So if only 11states were to vote for a particular candidate, he or she would win with the majority count of 270 votes. This is what it started out as, but that is not what it is now.
This last election, Trump won the majority of states, but it seems that Clinton won the majority of votes, so now there is a ruckus.
Now I am going to propose a popularity vote, but on a state by state basis. Each state conducts it's on individual state wide vote for the President and Vice President. When the votes are tallied up, then the person who gets the most votes wins for the state and each state will cast 1 vote. When the votes are counted, on a state by state basis, the individual who gets the most votes, and it must be a total of 26 votes or over, that individual wins the election. If, in the condition of a tie, 25 for each, then the vote goes to a national level, the one who gets the most overall votes, wins the election. I don't see that happening, but it's the fall back position.
In this last election, President Trump won 39 states, but Clinton won the majority. This would change the voting, by on a state for state basis and each state would only have a maximum of 1 vote per state.
This would also clarify that there would not be any plurality in the voting scheme no 'watching Florida, or watching California, nor Texas as each state would be the equal of any other state.
The electoral tally in 1900 was California – 9, Texas – 15, Florida – 4 and New York – 36.
Something to think about.
One of the few who voted.

Roody2
Roody2

Unfortunately, those who could benefit from this information will never see it. They are too busy throwing a hissy fit because they didn't get their way.

don76550

The writer is exactly right. The electoral college is designed so that all the states have a role in picking the president, not just the flakes and nuts of California and New York.

Bubba1
Bubba1

You're trying to explain common sense and the Constitution to the liberal left.

Good luck.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.