Trump’s Victory Should Not Obfuscate Election Fraud
[Democratic Party operatives clearly believed they could steal the 2016 Presidential Election for Hillary Clinton, just as they had done for her in the Democratic Primary. This is suggested, for example, in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s November 8 remarks on PBS’s NewsHour, where she exhibited strong confidence in a Clinton victory. This no doubt is the type of hubris that drove much of the electorate to vote against the incumbent party. Further, Dems chose an embodiment of establishment incompetence, insincerity and corruption who remarkably failed to even inspire her own purported base to turn out the vote, CNN observes. Still, as this brief article below suggests, the public will likely never know the Republican candidate’s true margin of victory, -Ed.]
Doug Steil
Aletho News
As luck would have it Hillary Clinton’s landslide loss was so big
that massive election fraud by Democratic Party operatives in various
cities could not overcome her deficit.The “shock” by insiders of having lost obviously reflects their earlier certainty of prevailing, which hints at the extent of their vote rigging schemes. The unverifiable system of voting in America is so flawed that foreign observers are now being blocked from monitoring US elections. The topic of fraud can no longer be swept under the rug.
Surely Clinton and the media will try to make a big deal of having “received more votes” than Trump in the popular vote total, which according to the current tabulation has already occurred, with an even higher differential to come once West Coast state results are all counted.
Those inside the DC Beltway and within elite campuses will claim that this is “unfair” and that Hillary really “should have won”.
However, this assertion should be vociferously challenged. Surely this surplus is artificial. Is it really possible that so many Americans would have ignored the prospect of going to war with Russia?
The question needs to be raised publicly: How many hundreds of thousand votes were switched from Trump to Clinton altogether and how many invalid (illegal) votes were registered for her?
Aside from that — assuming all the votes were legitimate — the electoral college system is intended to prevent, say, a concentration of votes in urban centers to the detriment of rural voters across the country. As is the case in Maine and Nebraska, voters in individual states can decide how to allocate their electoral votes, so it doesn’t have to be a winner-take-all system.
It is a tribute to the designers of the US Constitution that the Electoral College mechanism still exists. It’s almost as if though they might also have already suspected long ago that there could be illicit efforts in the future to change an election outcome simply by stuffing the ballots in a few locations. The indirect US electoral system has saved the country from a big crisis brought on by election fraud. Instead of changing the Constitution future election reforms should focus on making vote fraud impossible or extremely difficult to carry out.
No comments:
Post a Comment