William Robb wrote:
All we ask is that you just choose one this time around.
-------------------------------------
I normally don't comment on politics, but I've heard this so many times over the last four years and have to say:
1. Based on the electoral college, numerous voters are dienfranchised from the start. In other words, their vote for a president only counts up to the state level. If a state is 75% for one candidate and 25% for another, all electoral votes for the state go to the person with 75% of the vote, meaning the votes of the other 25% essentially don't count when it comes to choosing the president. Supposedly this helps keep big states from deciding the election and beating out all the little states. It leads to the situation where the candidate that wins the popular vote, might just not get to office.
2. If there is a dispute regarding the outcome of an election, where else can it be taken but to the courts?
3. If the Supreme Court had not gotten involved there would have been no resolution at all and one can only wonder if Clinton would still be in office. What if the court had said, OK Congress you choose the president?
4. If the Supreme Court had ordered new elections then one party or another would scream "unfair", because you can't count on the same people showing up/not showing up as last time.
5. If the Supreme Court had come down in favor of the opposing candidate, then it would be the Republicans crying that the president was selected, not elected, as the Democrats have been doing since 2000.
6. Indirectly, by virtue of past presidential candidates being elected and having chosen Supreme Court justices, one could make the case that the "people" did actually choose one.
Quite farcical actually.
Tom C.
