Wednesday, November 30, 2016

ON CITIZENSHIP





After people vote, does that mean they are already citizens, exercising their right of suffrage?

When they fill up the ballots and then drop them into election voting machines, are these enough to call them citizens?

What is being a citizen? This topic cropped up with me after a soon-to-be-an official barring genuine recounts of the votes in three States in US, said that if the illegal votes would be invalidated then he would have won the popular votes. 

I thought that this person is casting aspersions on an election process that has no basis at all, and I thought, would that make him a citizen? a good citizen?

What is a good citizen? 

A good citizen takes pride in his/her nationality. 

A good citizen takes pride in the race of the people he/she belongs to.

A good citizen takes pride in the history of the people that he/she belongs to -- especially in the defense of liberation of the country from colonial, neo-colonial and anti-democratic forces;  its defense against authoritarian regimes; its defense against iniquitous behavior and socio-political, economic and cultural forces that degrade women and children, especially; its defense against perpetuating poverty and underdevelopment as well as wars. . 

A good citizen takes pride in being with the people.

I would like to  think that political transitions really encourage us to think deeply of our position in our country, the position of our country in the world, and our own space in the universe. Let us think and rethink if our actions would redound to a permanent good for humanity or will just massage our egoes. 

What are we in this planet for?




Salvador Dali painting "The Persistence of Memory"

Sunday, November 27, 2016

WHAT IS HERRING IN PILIPINO?

HERRING IN PILIPINO IS TAWILIS

RED HERRING INTRO

Folks, when in politics, we must be sharp and sensitive to ideas that obfuscate, that blur the discussions. Actually this is beecause some parties would like people to be imbalanced in their views of the topic that is being debated upon. Now that is very dangerous and inimically bad for democracy. 



SO we need to look at the role of red herring in politics so that we can always redirect the focus to the issue. Now here is a definition of Red Herring which I think is apropos to consider at this time when there are talks of looking at the real and genuine outcome of elections from. literarydevices.net:




Folks, I hope that you would be patient about the mistakes in my blog. I suffer from constant hacking and invasion of the privacy of my communication tools in our country.

If you want to help me solve these problems, kindly write to President Duterte to rein in his police intelligence group. Would you believe that they are also voyeurs?

KNOWING A RED HERRING

Royalty-Free (RF) Clip Art Illustration of a Herring Drinking Beer by patrimonio



Folks, when in politics, we must be sharp and sensitive to ideas that obfuscate, that blur the discussions. Actually this is beecause some parties would like people to be imbalanced in their views of the topic that is being debated upon. Now that is very dangerous and inimically bad for democracy. 



SO we need to look at the role of red herring in politics so that we can always redirect the focus to the issue. Now here is a definition of Red Herring which I think is apropos to consider at this time when there are talks of looking at the real and genuine outcome of elections from. literarydevices.net:


Red Herring Definition

Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue. In literature, this fallacy is often used in detective or suspense novels to mislead readers or characters or to induce them to make false conclusions.
Let us consider a simple example of a red herring. A teacher catches a student cheating during a test. The student in response says, “I know I’ve made a mistake. But think of my parents. They’re going to kill me”. The student uses a red herring in his response. He tries to appeal to pity to distract his teacher from the real issue.
The term red herring means a kind of dried red fish, which has a pungent smell. In fox hunting, hounds are prevented from catching the fox by distracting them with the strong scent of red herring. Similarly, a person can be stopped from proving his point in an argument by distracting him with an irrelevant issue.

Common Red Herring Examples

Some examples of red herring fallacy in casual conversations are given below:
Mother: It’s bedtime Jane
Jane: Mom, how do ants feed their babies?
Mother: Don’t know dear. Close your eyes now.
Jane: But mama, do ant babies cry when hungry?
This conversation shows how a child tries to distract her mother so that she [Jane] could stay awake a little longer.
There is a lot of commotion regarding saving the environment. We cannot make this world an Eden. What will happen if it does become Eden? Adam and Eve got bored there!
The idea of Adam and Eve getting bored in Eden throws the listeners off the real issue of environment.

Examples of Red Herring in Literature

Mystery and suspense novels are rich with red herring examples as writers frequently use them to veil the facts from the readers in order to develop their interest.

Example #1

The character of “Bishop Aringarosa” in Dan Brown’s novel Da Vinci Code serves as an example of a red herring throughout the novel. The character is presented in such a way that the readers suspect him to be the mastermind of the whole conspiracy in the church. Later it was revealed that he was innocent. This example of a red herring in the novel distracts the readers from who the real bad person is and thus, adds to the mystery of the story. Interestingly, the Italian surname of the bishop “Aringarosa” translates in English as “red herring”.

Example #2

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes: Hound of the Baskervilles presents a classic example of a red herring. The readers are thrown off the real murderer and start suspecting the escaped “convict” and “Barrymore”. In the end, however, the mystery is resolved by the unexpected confession of “Beryl” that her husband “Stapleton” was the real culprit and was behind the whole mystery of the killer “Hound”.

Example #3

We observe the killer planting false clues and providing red herrings in Charlotte Macleod’s The Withdrawing Room. “Augustus Quiffen”, a lodger at Sarah’s Brownstone home, is killed falling under the train. Seemingly, it was an accident until “Mary Smith” tells “Sarah” that it is a murder but she cannot identify the murderer. “Sarah” and “Max Bittersohn” investigate the matter and find that the killer has planned the death beforehand and that he was well-prepared to conceal it with a convincing red herring.

Function of Red Herring

A red herring is a common device used in mystery and thriller stories to distract the reader from identifying the real culprit. The red herring in a story can take the form of characters that the reader suspect, but who turn out be innocent when the real murderer is identified. It aims at keeping the readers guessing at the possibilities until the end and therefore keeps them interested in the story. The readers enjoy solving the mysteries created by red herrings in the story. Undoubtedly, it would be difficult to keep the reader’s interest, if thrillers exposed the killer from the start.
Moreover, for politicians, red herrings come in handy as they use them frequently to dodge difficult questions in a discussion or an argument. They do it by referring to a different issue, which of course is irrelevant, to sidetrack from the original issue under discussion.

Friday, November 25, 2016

WHAT THE WORLD CAN DO



A pattern seems to exist, wherein supposedly winning candidates yet whose elections are still being questioned suddenly surge in media blitz and talk with foreign partners, as if their position is already legitimate. 

I think that is one way of killing democracy and provides a gloomy scenery of being in politics. We are made to think that it is might makes right, not right makes might. 

An issue-riddled presidential election must not be legitimized by countries who regard the official-to-be's views as official until such time when he/she has already been installed. 

What the world can do is wait and see until after everything has been formally settled. 

Yes, it would be truly depressing to find that efforts to introduce justice in elections would be marred by charades -- as if everything is finished and official. 

There is a time for reckoning and a time for celebration. 

Thursday, November 24, 2016

WHOSE GOVERNMENT?

Abraham Lincoln

1. When we say that something is wrong in terms of governance of elections, the people involved say: I cannot do anything about it. I am just being told what to do, and I follow the orders. 

2. A priest who didn't like the idea of a recount of the votes during the 1992 elections wherein Miriam questioned the voting count, said, "We cannot afford to have a vacuum." What vacuum when Cory was still there who could have extended her stay as president. 

3. Who shall prevail, the people or the political parties? This is really intriguing.

4. Who is the final arbiter, God? If so, let us speak of Biblical truths. 

5. I remember one lawyer who quoted: the law should serve the people, and not the people serve the law. Now the law on electoral college is ages old. So should it still prevail now when loopholes have surfaced about its truthful effectivity for raising the right officials voted by the people?

6. When there are election issues, so many kinds of people arise, oppressive, anti-democratic and anti-people. You can bet their basis is some anachronistic law or tradition. 

7. The question now is how to stop the destruction or casting into oblivion of democratic ideals. When Marcos corpse was buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, the historical role of the Filipino people in the democratic upheaval in our country and the world got lost somewhere. 

8. In the long run, the question now boils down to respecting the people's choice. 

9. That is the essence of democracy defined as government of the people, by the people and for the people:




Saturday, November 19, 2016

WHEN VOTING BECOMES A COMI-TRAGIC EVENT

What validates an election? The votes. Who files the votes? The voters. Not the middlemen and women -- not the electoral college members. The latter just sift through the ballots to see who has the greater number of yeses and noes. Then vote according to the rules, "supposed to be." 
charlie chaplin: Simple silhouette of the film actor Charlie Chaplin Stock Photo But should that be the case all the time?

Perhaps when the ancestors of Americans devised the electoral college, it was difficult to consolidate all the ballots as it was a continental problem and transportation was still through horseback riding. And to carry sacks of ballots to one place for counting would have been an enormous task. 

But now that voting is just a click away, the use of the electoral college becomes irrelevant and dangerous in the hands of people who do not value the genuine votes of the people. 

Yet some people want to uphold that antiquated method. You can get a fake or genuine official if that is the case. Thus voting can become a case of both comic and tragic event.

We, in the Philippines, suffered a lot from having a fake president. It just didn't feel right at all when President Erap was deposed. So the chain of command felt giggly. 

I wonder what the US Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force would feel having a president who does not hold the real votes of the people. 

Alas, voting has become a tragic event indeed, not only in the Philippines, but also in the United States and other parts of the world. Cheating in elections has become a way of life. 

And it looks like the EC is some form of legitimized covert untoward behavior to install an unpopular candidate.







RESEARCHES ON ELECTORS



When was the law on the Electoral College decreed and amended? In 1787.


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 Offi ce of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
[The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certifi cates, and the Votes shall then be counted.

The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the fi ve highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.]*

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

What have been the developments in the United States since then? A lot which could affect the way the Constitution should already be written. The mindsets of the officials in 1787 should be definitely different from those of 2016.

So how can the Constitutional provisions be said then to be still applicable until now?

That is very difficult to answer, right?

The big question actually is HOW RELEVANT IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE NOW?

Does it really protect the people's right of suffrage?

Does the government respect the right of the people to choose their own officials?

We do not know the mindsets of the officials of 1787 except that they probably had desired order, and that no majority could impose their will on the people.

But in the last elections, we could see that, the people from the rural areas imposed their will through the electors who determined who should win the elections.

Now is that not discrimination, as results show that more people voted for a different individual than the one now purported to be the winner?

When Marcos lost in the 1986 elections, and yet had himself declared as winner, there were many acts he did which gave a semblance of “validity” to his elections. But eventually, he lost to the People Power Movement.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A VOTER AND AN ELECTOR? An elector is only a go between the Citizen and the State. Now, despite all the technological developments on this planet, why should there be a dichotomy between the two? Aren't they one and the same?

But no, the Elector seems to have more important powers than the voter which is anti-democratic.

For Democracy means, a government OF the people, BY the people and FOR the people.

Yet the presence of Electors is highly dubious, and makes a mockery of the elections. They are a priviledged class, legitimized, legalized because of a historical basis which has become anachronistic in the light of developments in the more liberated definitions of Democracy.

joker-clown-in-cannon-at-circus.jpg
WHO HAS PROFITTED FROM THIS DICHOTOMY?

Are there researches whether the Electors have really voted for those that the people have chosen?

What about the lifestyles of the Electors, are they still the same before and after the elections? Has there been a study at all that would point to the fact that they did not profit from their having put on the tasks as Electors?

Everyone calls him President-Elect, not the voted President. The electoral college put him there, not the voters. How tragic, indeed. 



Tuesday, November 15, 2016

TWO MILLION VOTES NULLIFIED? SHOCKING!


Image result for female thinker artwork




Musing over the relevance of the Electoral College (EC) for the US election of the President and Vice-President is mind-boggling to say the list. And until now I see no clarity at all. It seems that the EC is a method which really discounts the importance of many citizen's votes. It also appears that the method is dividing the country -- thus appearing as if the Americans are not all Americans but rather are a mixture of this and that citizen. If I visit New York, and then California, will there be a difference in terms of citizens minds and hearts? Are they not all Americans? 

When an election is meant to define the future and to push the progress of everyone, having that EC does not seem to be the proper means to insure that the people get the right leaders for themselves. Limiting the choosing of the officials to a few individuals who act as members of the EC is like allowing only a few people to eat the pie which has been made by millions of people. 

At the latest count, Hillary could win by 2 million votes* over Trump and yet the latter is the one who will enjoy the title of President. Is that not unfair to the 2 Million voters who exerted so much effort to vote? They racked their brains over so many months, listening to the debates, analysing the discussions, determining which individual could best serve their political, economic, social and cultural interest. Now, is it possible to dismiss their votes just because of a method that is highly flawed, from the choice of electors to the actual voting process?

The United States is touted to be the leading Democratic country in the world. And so wherever she goes, to whatever country, and then engages in war, the people do not question anymore her motives, rather the majority do not. That is because it is as if Superman is coming, Folks, listen and watch as he defeats the evil monsters of the world. 

Now who will slay the monsters of the ballots? 

"In the US, some 400 institutions now run PhDs programmes and more than 1.35 million doctorates were awarded between 1920 and 1999. Of these, 62% were in science and engineering – “itself a reflection of the way in which modern economies were becoming more dependent on technological development”. **

Thus, despite the advances in education, the United States who is fourth, in 2012, in terms of being the most educated country, with her neighbor Canada topping the list, in terms of elections, it seems to be lagging behind our own Philippine elections, where the people really make their own choice of the officials.  

Now why in the world does this EC exist in the US?  How come it is so easy for an election to nullify, to invalidate, to annul, to negate, to  ZAP two million votes?
Is it not enough that all voters have minds and hearts which they use for voting? By sticking to the EC method, isn't the US rocking them to not feel anything and just accept what has been brought in by the EC? 

God, until know, I do not understand this Electoral College at all. Please help me because it is the counterpart of our Extrajudicial Killings of dope pushers in our country -- a kind of mockery and assassination of the votes. 

That this is happening in the leading country for Democracy is incomprehensible. There should be a more humane way of choosing the president. That this is occurring under a president who was chosen overwhelmingly despite his skin color in 2007 and 2011 is rather shocking. 






*http://www.ibtimes.com/latest-poll-most-accurate-survey-has-donald-trump-leading-hillary-clinton-point

** (http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20130403121244660)
omparison chart

Male sculpture, The Thinker by Rodin

Female sculpture, The Thinker by Eduardo Gomez










A comparison of the Electoral vs Popular Votes
Electoral Vote versus Popular Vote comparison chart
Edit this comparison chartElectoral VotePopular Vote
Political StructureRepresentative republicDirect democracy
Progression of VoteCitizen votes for delegate or representative, generally in accordance with their allegiances/party affiliation. Delegates convene and vote. Winner of that vote is elected for the position in question.Citizens vote for their choice of official for the position being elected. Votes are counted. Majority of votes is elected to that position.
BureaucracyRequires formation of some form of committee, college, or council to vote after they've been elected. May also have government oversight organizations.Requires no formation of such groups, nor the election of such groups. May also have government oversight organizations.
Establishment of Voting DistrictsMandatory, regional delegates run for given district's delegate locations via their party or individually.Not required.
GerrymanderingPresent and created as a result of voting districts.Not created due to lack of need for voting districts.
Party BenefitsFavors majority parties, as they can concentrate resources, change bureaucracy, establish and gerrymander voting districts.Favors no party size in particular, though greatly improves potential for minority parties e.g., a third political party in the U.S.






Modern History

A presidential candidate needs 270 (just over 50%) electoral votes to win.
Here is a list of the number of electoral votes for each state:
StateElectoral Votes
Alabama9
Alaska3
Arizona11
Arkansas6
California55
Colorado9
Connecticut7
Delaware3
Washington, D.C.3
Florida29
Georgia16
Hawaii4
Idaho4
Illinois20
Indiana11
Iowa6
Kansas6
Kentucky8
Louisiana8
Maine4
Maryland10
Massachusetts11
Michigan16
Minnesota10
Mississippi6
Missouri10
Montana3
Nebraska5
Nevada6
New Hampshire4
New Jersey14
New Mexico5
New York29
North Carolina15
North Dakota3
Ohio18
Oklahoma7
Oregon7
Pennsylvania20
Rhode Island4
South Carolina9
South Dakota3
Tennessee11
Texas38
Utah6
Vermont3
Virginia13
Washington12
West Virginia5
Wisconsin10
Wyoming3
Does not allow higher populated areas (say, CA or NY) to take advantage of being able to always vote for the candidate, thereby underrepresenting the other rural areas of the nation.


Harder to accomplish beyond geographically-close groups prior to modern transportation and communication. These hindrances are no longer in place for developed nations.



Monday, November 14, 2016

PEOPLE POWER MOVEMENT

From February 7, 1986, when Marcos cheated in the snap presidential Philippine elections to defeat Cory, the widow of Ninoy Aquino, up to February 21, 1986, two weeks, the people did not stop demonstrating against him. So much so that the Church, under Cardinal Sin was forced to wade his feet into the political waters, calling on the people to protect then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile and General Fidel Ramos from being bamboozled by the military forces of Marcos. 

Actually, the People Power Movement took four years to prosper, speedying up after the assassination of Ninoy at the tarmac. 

That Movement was characterized by spontaneous and individual voluntarism by the people -- preparing their own posters in newspapers and tacking them on walls and fences. 

to be continued

Sunday, November 13, 2016

WHAT IS TO BE DONE

Blue Dove with Solid Background
Dave Brown, The Independent
Dave Brown, The IndependentFolks, Read this which I clipped from the FBI organizational structure: (Federal Bureau of Investigation



Our Core Values

Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States;
Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
Compassion;
Fairness;
Uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity;
Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and the consequences of our actions and decisions;
Leadership, both personal and professional; and
Diversity.
Our History

The FBI was established in 1908. See our History website for more details on our evolution and achievements over the years.

Our Motto


“Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity"

Did Director Comey exhibit all of those values when he filed that comment on Hillary's emails without investigating if there was a hint of wrongdoing at all?

So, does this show that the era of professionalism is gone in the government work of FBI?

Hillary recently clamed Comey's letter as the cause of her defeat in the polls. But then, the struggle is not over yet.

1. The votes can be recounted;
2. Another group has proposed that the Electoral College be convened and make them vote again;
3. The Electoral College's votes can be examined for their faithfulness to follow the people's will -- the true state of their votes;
4. Director Comey may apologize and be dismissed from office; and
5. The Protest Movement, following a peaceful path, can follow the way of all peace-loving countries that have turned democratic and prevent a Trump ascension;


WHAT IS TO BE DONE


Folks, Read this which I clipped from the FBI organizational structure: (Federal Bureau of Investigation)



Our Core Values

Rigorous obedience to the Constitution of the United States;
Respect for the dignity of all those we protect;
Compassion;
Fairness;
Uncompromising personal integrity and institutional integrity;
Accountability by accepting responsibility for our actions and decisions and the consequences of our actions and decisions;
Leadership, both personal and professional; and
Diversity.
Our History

The FBI was established in 1908.

Motto


“Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity"

Did Director Comey exhibit all of those values when he filed that comment on Hillary's emails without investigating if there was a hint of wrongdoing at all?

So, does this show that the era of professionalism is gone in the government work of FBI?

Hillary recently claimed Comey's letter as the cause of her defeat in the polls. But then, the struggle is not over yet.

1. The votes can be recounted;
2. Another group has proposed that the Electoral College be convened and make them vote again;
3. The Electoral College's votes can be examined for their faithfulness to follow the people's will -- the true state of their votes;
4. Director Comey may apologize and be dismissed from office; and
5. The Protest Movement, following a peaceful path, can follow the way of all peace-loving countries that have turned democratic and prevent a Trump ascension;


Saturday, November 12, 2016

WE SHALL OVERCOME

Three Musicans by Picasso
Three Musicians, 1921 by Pablo PicassoThree Musicians by Picasso


Mahalia Jackson---We Shall Overcome

We shall overcome, we shall overcome,
We shall overcome someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe, 
We shall overcome someday.

The Lord will see us through, The Lord will see us through,
The Lord will see us through someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall overcome someday.

We're on to victory, We're on to victory,
We're on to victory someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We're on to victory someday.

We'll walk hand in hand, we'll walk hand in hand,
We'll walk hand in hand someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We'll walk hand in hand someday.

We are not afraid, we are not afraid,
We are not afraid today;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We are not afraid today.

The truth shall make us free, the truth shall make us free,
The truth shall make us free someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
The truth shall make us free someday.

We shall live in peace, we shall live in peace,
We shall live in peace someday;
Oh, deep in my heart, I do believe,
We shall live in peace someday

SINGING AWAY WHILE THINKING AND MARCHING PEACEFULLY

While we are so concerned about our societies, let us sing inspiring songs by Afro Americans. Here is


'Music Feast II' - Painting of African Musicians
https://www.novica.com/itemdetail/?pid=222042
GREAT DAY American Negro SongArranged by Moses Hogan for 4 voices

Great day !
Great day, the righteous marching
Great day
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls
Chariot rode on the mountain top
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls
My God spoke and the chariot stop
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls
This is the day of jubilee
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls
The Lord has set His people free
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls
We want no cowards in our band
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls
We call for valiant hearted men
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls
Going to take my breast-plate, sword and shield
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls
And march boldly in the field
God’s going to build up Zion’s walls

MOSES HOGAN's Arrangement of a Negro Spiritual

from “American Negro Songs”by John W. Work, 1940
O, Walk together children
Don’t you get weary
Walk together children
Don’t you get weary
Walk together children
Don’t you get weary
There’s a great camp meeting in the Promised Land
Talk together children
Don’t you get weary
Talk together children
Don’t you get weary
Talk together children
    Don’t you get weary
There’s a great camp meeting in the Promised Land
 Going to shout and never tire
Shout and never tire
Shout and never tire
There’s a great camp meeting in the Promised Land
 O. Get you ready children
Don’t you get weary
Get you ready children
Don’t you get weary
Get you ready children
Don’t you get weary
There’s a great camp meting in the Promised Land
For Jesus is a-coming
     Don’t you get weary
esus is a-coming
Don’t you get weary
Jesus is a-coming
Don’t you get weary
There’s a great camp meeting in the Promised Land
 O, I feel the spirit….
 Now I’m getting happy

Thursday, November 10, 2016

REAL WILL OF THE PEOPLE


Image result for clip art electoral college



Dear Folks, I grieve for the people around the globe who had expected a more liberal candidate to win in the last US Presidential Elections. It is not right to be living in a world where you could be sitting beside a racist, narrow-minded leader. 

But here is the flaw in the electoral process of the United States: They rely so much on the Electors to vote for the presidency yet -- look at this: 

 The ELECTORS are expected to vote for the presidential and vice presidential 

candidates of the party that nominated them. Notwithstanding this expectation, 

individual electors have sometimes not honored their commitment, voting for a 

different candidate or candidates than the ones to whom they were pledged; they are

known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors.

In other words, it is not the will of the people which will prevail but that of the electors. Question: how many faithful and faithless Electors were there in the 2016 Electionrs?

God Bless America for whatever reasons she would no 

longer be the leader, supporter, and enhancer of '

Democracy in the world under his term. 






A Summary of how the ELECTORAL COLLEGE works:
It is the elector-candidates, rather than the presidential and vice presidential nominees, for whom the people vote in the November election, which is held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November. In most states, voters cast a single vote for the slate of electors pledged to the party presidential and vice presidential candidates of their choice. The slate winning the most popular votes is elected; this is known as the winner-take-all, or general ticket, system.

They are pledged and expected, but not required, to vote for the candidates they represent. A majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) is required to win.

Constitutional Origins It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation.

The Constitution gave each state a number of electors equal to the combined total of its membership in the Senate (two to each state, the “senatorial” electors) and its delegation in the House of Representatives (currently ranging from one to 52 Members).

Qualifications for the office are broad: the only persons prohibited from serving as electors are Senators, Representatives, and persons “holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States.”

A majority of electoral votes is necessary to elect, a requirement intended to insure broad acceptance of a winning candidate, while election by the House was provided as a default method in the event of electoral college deadlock. The 12th Amendment replaced this system with separate ballots for President and Vice President, with electors casting a single vote for each office.

Allocation of Electors and Electoral Votes

A state may gain or lose electors following reapportionment, but it always retains its two “senatorial” electors, and at least one more reflecting its House delegation.Popular Election of Electors

Today, all presidential electors are chosen by the voters.

Although candidates for elector may be well known persons, such as governors, state legislators, or other state and local officials, they generally do not receive public recognition as electors. In fact, in most states, the names of individual electors do not appear anywhere on the ballot; instead only those of the various candidates for President and Vice President appear, usually prefaced by the words “electors for.” Moreover, electoral votes are commonly referred to as having “been awarded” to the winning candidate, as if no human beings were involved in the process.





The ELECTORS are expected to vote for the presidential and vice presidential candidates of the party that nominated them. Notwithstanding this expectation, individual electors have sometimes not honored their commitment, voting for a different candidate or candidates than the ones to whom they were pledged; they are known as “faithless” or “unfaithful” electors.

Faithless electors have, however, been few in number (in the 20 century, one each in 1948, 1956, 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, and 2000), and have never influenced the outcome of a presidential election.

Nominating Elector-Candidates: Diverse State Procedures

34 states require that candidates for the office of presidential elector be nominated by state party conventions, while a further ten mandate nomination by the state party’s central committee. The remaining states use a variety of methods, including nomination by the governor (on recommendation of party committees), by primary election, and by the party’s presidential nominee.
The Electors Convene

The 12th Amendment requires electors to meet “in their respective states …” This provision was intended to deter manipulation of the election by having the state electoral colleges meet simultaneously, but keeping them separate. Congress sets the date on which the electors meet, currently the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. The electors almost always meet in the state capital, usually in the capitol building or state house itself. They vote “by ballot” separately for President and Vice President (at least one of the candidates must be from another state). The results are then endorsed, and copies are sent to the Vice President (in his capacity as President of the Senate); the secretary of state of their state; the Archivist of the United States; and the judge of the federal district court of the district in which the electors met. Having performed their constitutional duty, the electors adjourn, and the electoral college ceases to exist until the next presidential election.

Congress Counts and Certifies the Vote

The final step in the presidential election process (aside from the presidential inaugural on January 20) is the counting and certification of the electoral votes by Congress.


The candidates receiving a majority of electoral votes (currently 270 of 538) are declared the winners by the Vice President, an action that constitutes “a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the States.”