LETTER

US election reply

 

Anita Nickerson's letter saying that Donald Trump was the "false winner" of the US election because he narrowly [over 2 million votes – Editor] lost the popular vote is ridiculous.

Both major parties enacted strategies for an election based on the Electoral College and neither attempted to win the popular overall as a priority.

The Electoral College system discourages the minority party in heavy blue or red states from voting. Trump himself said he would have campaigned in New York and California, as well as spent more time in Florida. Clinton no doubt would have campaigned differently as well. The voter turnout was 52% in New York and 54% in California, but 61-68% in swing states that proved crucial to the winner. The truth is that we simply can't tell who would have won the 2016 election if it had been based on the popular vote! I would therefore question the political knowledge and analysis of Ms Nickerson's organization as it relates to Canadian affairs.

Let's not forget that the Electoral College gives a higher weight to smaller states (each state has two senators and thus two extra electoral votes) so that the 10 or so largest states cannot easily dominate presidential elections. There are pros and cons to any system.

In conclusion, the "false winner" nonsense is like playing chess and saying you would have won if the game had been checkers.

Eric Russell
Aylmer

NOTE: Multiple states have already passed legislation giving their state’s electoral college votes to the national winner, not their state’s victor. Protests across the USA are asking for this process to be accepted by the College itself, this year. On Dec. 19, the College will make their decision – it has not been made.
 - Editor