Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+

In my last column I discussed the hair-on-fire reaction of the American left to the electoral rejection of the pantsuit woman in favor of the guy with the world’s biggest comb-over.

Since then, more hilarity has ensued.

We have the political Kabuki of Jill Stein, hitherto a virtual political unknown non-entity, trying to force vote recounts in three (as of this writing) states.

Of course, she has a better chance of winning the Powerball lottery than actually reversing the results in any of those states, but that doesn’t really matter.

She’s now catapulted herself from complete obscurity and irrelevance to being nationally known, not to mention being in control of millions of dollars not previously available to her.

Think that might come in handy in – oh, say, four years – when her presidential aspirations are as sure to resurface as a dolphin gulping for air?

You tell me.

Then, of course, we have the complete and utter outrage that Ms. Pantsuit can win a couple of million more popular votes than Mr. Comb-over but still lose the actual election, all due to the “arcane, unnecessary and outdated” institution of the Electoral College. Naturally, this leads to bleats for the elimination of the Electoral College all together.

Wake-up time: The Electoral College isn’t going anywhere, since it would take an amendment to the Constitution to eliminate it.

But here’s where the so-called “logic” of the leftists falls to pieces. Our national election is just like the baseball World Series in that the election consists of 50 individual contests for electoral delegates just as the World Series consists of seven individual games.

The outcome is based on who wins the most of those individual contests (in the election) or games (in the Series), not the cumulative total of runs – or votes.

That team with the most states – or won games – wins the election or the Series.

There’s another huge gap in their “logic.” There’s a built-in assumption that if the election were a straight plebiscite, the vote totals would be the same as they are under our present system.

But here’s a dose of reality. I know of several personal acquaintances – and I’m sure they’re typical of many, based on simple human nature – who are conservatives and/or Republicans, who simply never vote for president because they know that this state’s 55 Electoral College delegates are going to the Dems no matter what.

They consider their votes a waste of time, or an opportunity to make some other “statement” a la the NeverTrumpers.

But if those people had known their votes would have a direct impact on the actual outcome of the election, I have no doubt they’d have shown up in droves to vote not for Trump, but against Clinton.

As of now Clinton’s popular margin is around two million more votes than Trump, but I’d bet big money that if there weren’t an Electoral College he’d have gained around a million votes out of California alone.

Throw in New York, Massachusetts, Washington state and Illinois and he’d have cleaned her clock in the popular vote, too.

Brian Baker is a Saugus resident.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+
Comments
By commenting, you agree to our terms and conditions.
  • Ron Bischof

    The question is whether Democrats are ignorant of how the Electoral College functions or are willfully obtuse because they don’t find the results of a free and fair election congenial, Brian.

    Noting how the victor in the 2000 Presidential election was inaccurately described as “selected not elected”, it appears the latter is the case.

  • Brian Baker

    Well, bud, it just so happens that I saved that entire thread, too. That’s why it’s been so easy for me to copy-and-paste your “SCV castrati choir” comment wherever and whenever I want. The internet is forever.

    And, since I’ve been using my real name here since.. oh, forever… it clearly had no impact on me, because here I am, and here I’ve been, all along.

    Bud, really, time to put on your big-boy pants. You want to trade insults with me, I’m down with that. Just be ready when you do, because I seem to be a whole lot better at it than you are.

  • Ron Bischof

    You’ll note zero changes in my responses to your conspiracy theory postings, Mr. Shalom.

  • Ed Shalom

    Mr. Baker:
    Since you are the perpetual archivist of this forum, you should take another look at my poem below….It astounds me that you claim to be the very best in trading insults….is this what we should all be about ? Would you feel victorious if I acknowledged that you are the best at slinging mud ?
    Looking at your on-line photo, I see an unhappy and unbalanced person, who needs to get away from his angry keyboard, and smell the roses….this suggestion is not meant as an attack or an insult, but a helpful suggestion.
    **************************************************************************
    March 11, 2015

    If You Have Succeeded
    (for a Truly Difficult Person)

    If you have
    succeeded

    In getting
    me into

    A pissing
    contest

    With you…

    Then, by
    definition

    You have
    succeeded

    Beyond your
    wildest dreams

    In getting
    me to piss

    Upon myself
    Which would REALLY

    PISS ME OFF
    PS: Didja like the satire that demonstrated that Don Juan Trump is an illegal alien, and a reptilian extra-terrestrial ? If the shoe fits,……

    • Brian Baker

      Well, Shalom, yet another demonstration of your obviously inflated opinion of yourself.

      First of all, you should learn accuracy. Reread what I wrote. I didn’t “claim to be the very best in trading insults”. I only claimed to be better than YOU. That’s a very low bar to clear. Not even a speed bump.

      What’s next? Ah, yes… your poem. Well, little guy, if you wrote that, all I can tell you is: don’t quit your day job.

      Next? Your little “satire”. Well, I have to wonder in what way you think it’s at all relevant to the column I wrote. But, who cares?

      I especially liked how you can look at a picture of me and do such an incisive analysis. Of course, it’s not a very good picture. I’m way better looking than that. Maybe that’s what led you astray, all in the form of “suggestion”, not “an attack or an insult”, of course.

      That’s an interesting thought, little guy. Is that how you try to fool yourself that you’re not starting fights? Or are you at least self-aware enough to realize that’s a load of bullpuckey? Not asking as “an attack or an insult”, of course. Just curious. A “suggestion” for some self-examination you can perform.

      Maybe I should take a page from your book and go whining to The Signal about what a meanie you are. Boo-hoo, and all of that. How it’s so unfair that anyone can post a comment on the thread without their picture attached.

      Whaddaya think, little guy?

    • Brian Baker

      PS

      When I call you “little guy”, that’s “not meant as an attack or an insult”, either.

      I’ve seen YOUR picture, too… little guy. It’s merely a statement of fact.