Does our Vote Actually Count

I think it is important for everyone to remember that we, the United States of America, operate under a political system known as a Democratic Republic. As a Republic, we do not directly elect our president. The electoral college elects the president. The delegates to the electoral college, for the most part are designated, not elected, by the individual states committees. Here is how the constitution addresses the designation of the delegates: Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

They generally follow the vote of the state, but are actually not bound to do so. Another interesting point about the electoral college is that the states for the most part designate a "winner take all" status for the electoral college votes. This means that if the majority of the voters in the state vote for a candidate, all the electoral votes go to that candidate. Maine and Nebraska allocate their electoral votes based on the winners of congressional districts in these states.

So, does our vote count, yes it certainly does because it determines how the electoral college will cast their votes. 

 

Would I like to see a change in the electoral system, ABSOLUTELY. I would like to see it revert to it's original intent -- that like NH, Nebraska and Maine, the electoral votes are cast according to how each individual congressional district votes, but since the states have control over the electoral delegates and how they will vote, returning to original intent is a leap which will probably never happen.

Second Amendment Parsing by the Biased Media

Since Trumps rally in NH yesterday, the media has been having a field day accusing him of suggesting that 2nd amendment advocates might take action into their own hands and commit an act of violence against her. To anyone who actually listened to his speech and listened to it in context to the rest of the few paragraphs before and after, it would be nothing more than it was  --  a suggestion that 2nd amendment advocates are a strong voting block which should band together to vote for him rather than Hillary.

Of course the blathering media chooses not to see it this way and becomes riotous in their condemnation of Trump. They are taking every opportunity to excoriate Trump and anyone on the right side of the isle when they give the leftists a total pass.  How do we know this?  Consider the words of Obama and Hillary themselves of which I was reminded by Gary Bauer...

In 2008, then-candidate Obama urged his supporters to "argue with neighbors, get in their faces," and the media yawned. Obama also said, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." When conservatives suggested such rhetoric might encourage violence, Obama and the media laughed it off. End of story from the fawning media.

Now here's a far more interesting comparison. In May of 2008, at a time when Hillary was losing the Democrat primary to Obama and facing increasing calls to bow out of the race, she was asked why she insisted on staying in. She said, "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Was she suggesting that she might benefit from Barack Obama's assassination? Of course not, and the media moved on.

Yet Trump, innocently makes the suggestion that 2nd amendment supporters are a strong voting block and should band together and he gets castigated.  They make no mention of his economic plan which is sound and will greatly help increase the GDP, bring capital back into the country, bring manufacturing back to the US and help return the large block of workers who have left the labor force back into the ranks of the employed.  Hillary on the other hand, actually makes the declarative statement that she is going to raise taxes, not only on the wealthy, but in her own words, "on the middle class".  Hear the media taking her to task for this?  Hear the media hammering her on her outright lie that Director Comey found her to be truthful?  Do we hear anything from the media about how the absolutely wrong statements by Obama and Hillary about how well the economy is doing when we continue to suffer through the worst recession recovery in our lifetimes?  NO, all we hear is the media going on and on about what they perceive Trump to have meant by a single statement.
Do we hear any comparisons from the media between the rally's Trump holds which are not only packed, but place speakers outside the halls so the overflow crowd can listen as well while the Hillary rally's are so poorly populated that many are cancelled?  Not a peep.

I will be the first to admit that this election cycle has sunk to the point that both candidates are completely flawed, but it really burns me as I watch how one side is being so over scrutinized while the other side is getting a total pass by what is supposed to be a "neutral" media.



This is a campaign which will boil down to which flawed candidate has the best interests of America at heart and which of the candidates has the greatest ability to reform and lead the country out of the economic doldrums of the Obama policies.  Regardless of which you think will do the best job, your decision should NOT be based on the parsed editorials of a transparently biased media which believes they can spoon feed their bias to an uneducated public.  Rise up America and do the research so you can think for yourself.