Is it that bad, or am I being a tad dramatic? I’ve been told I can be a drama queen, but right now America is unstable, and I’ve never seen Americans behaving so ‘un-American’. Politics aside, what I don’t understand is why Americans are being mean, rude, and pretty much nasty to people that they don’t know online if they don’t support Trump in becoming the next President of their country. Surely freedom of speech means everyone is entitled to their own opinion without being attacked? I’m sure many of the former Presidents are shaking their heads too.
What I don’t understand is this opposition to a recount and the hostility towards Jill Stein. She has a right to a recount, and has followed the procedures, which the states in question have altered on a whim. Why allow a recount only to prevent people from having it once they make an application? Only people or groups that have something to hide would try to block a recount, and cries of it’s a waste of money and time has no validity—it’s not tax payers money, the people involved are volunteers, and those state officials, well that’s their job.
Then there is the CIA declaring that they have evidence that external forces (Russia) have interfered with the election process, and the GOP want it investigated, but not Trump. Something isn’t right here. One should be concerned if the CIA have evidence, and one can only surmise that Trump is dismissing it because he doesn’t want people to dig any further. Besides that, surely if Russia or any hackers wanted to prove they could hack into any system, wouldn’t they have released Trump’s emails too?
There has been the smell of foul play on more than one occasion, but it still beggars belief as to why people voted for someone with no experience, who mocks minorities, has no actual policies, and has proven to be untrustworthy? Are 25 percent of Americans not that bright, were they conned, or did they hate Clinton so much they voted against her on purpose? Either way it’s a concern, and I have a couple of friends who admitted they voted for Trump, and to be honest I don’t have a response for them. They know I do not share that view. I cannot fathom why they would support him, and their response is always Clinton has done bad things. Newsflash, so has Trump, but isn’t it better the devil you know?
I had another conversation with an American friend who wouldn’t say who she voted for, but she simply said that change was needed. That’s what people say when they don’t want to admit they voted for Trump in fear that people will judge them as racist. Again, of course if you support a racist, you are in fact saying that is acceptable behavior. There is no grey area here—if you support someone who has settled fraud cases, been racist and rude to minority groups, you don’t get to say you aren’t racist if you voted for them. You enable them and have voted for the whole package. I’m also tired of people saying, “Give him a chance…” or “Let’s wait and see…” because so far his choice of cabinet has included racists, and those with far right policies. If you look back to Hitler’s era, all the politicians took the same stance, to see if he would back down and gave him a chance. We all know how that turned out with World War II, millions dead, and 70 years on, people are still suffering from the after effects. Are we on the brink of WW III or Civil War?
Many of my friends supported Bernie Sanders, and he seems a decent chap and one that had the best interests of the country at heart, but he was never going to win. Not from a lack of experience, but his hands would have been tied with the Republican majority in Congress. I’m glad he is a Senator in Vermont, and is a great state that I would choose to live in. He can do good things there, and I hope he speaks out and challenges those in Congress for the people. I’m not a Socialist or Liberal, but I know right from wrong.
Looking at the Constitution, there was no failsafe for foreign or external interference as back then all votes were counted by hand in person (as it is done in the UK). Today, with electronic voting and a population far greater than the Framers had to contend with, there needs to be some protection for the electoral system. What exists now is not enough. If there is proof there was interference, then it renders the election void and invalid, but the system doesn’t have a means to directly resolve that situation. Congress could pass an amendment, but is there time, and would Trump oppose? In the UK if there was evidence of tampering, then action would be taken, but as votes are hand counted it would be very difficult to do.
Many look to the faithless electors and while each state can choose the electors and how they vote, for the states that force them to vote according to the popular vote in the state, that defies the very essence of the Constitution. Electors should be free to vote for whom they wish without fear of reprisals from the state legislature. That is why the Electoral College was set up, so that the elected voters could vote freely without pressure or coercion. Theoretically, states that impose fines or punishments are acting unconstitutionally even though the SCOTUS (Ray v. Blair, 343 US 214) held that the Constitution does not require electors to be free to choose and may be pledged to make a specific vote. However, that defies the concept of the Electoral College, where electors are not supposed to have any political bias according to Alexander Hamilton (The Federalist Papers 68) and also the dissent from Justice Jackson. Votes from a state can also be rejected, but only if both houses agree to this and is formally objected in writing by a member of each house. This occurred during the 1872 election where the Arkansas and Louisiana votes were rejected due to irregularities.
The closest we get is the Twentieth Amendment:
“Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
However, it’s vague and open to interpretation, because who declares an election is void? Surely Congress must if evidence is presented to show that there was tampering? One thing we can all agree on is that America is unstable, and the people are divided. Sadly, the US doesn’t seem such a great place to live or to visit right now…