As the electoral college convenes Monday to expectedly usher in Donald J. Trump as our 45th president, the mainstream media has made much of Hillary Clinton's 2.8 million lead in the popular vote total.
However, Trump collected 74 more of the crucial electoral votes where it counts.
The media would have had us believe a majority of U.S. voters expressed a wide-ranging love affair with Clinton. After all, we're talking millions of Americans.
Then I read John Merline's thoughtful Nov. 17 essay in Investor's Business Daily where he's the deputy editor for opinion.
Using vote totals gathered a week after the Nov. 8 election, he showed that the only reason Clinton amassed such a lead was ... wait for it: The voters in Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown's anything-goes California.
Come now. Surely you're mistaken, Mr. Merline. Just one state? You mean to tell me, if not for California, Trump would have won both the popular and electoral votes?
I realize California's a sovereign state like the other 49 in what sadly has lately become our not-so-United States. But surely its sheer numbers can't have that kind of influence over the rest of a nation of over 300 million, most of which neither reason nor act like the radical-left-wing population gathered there.
Isn't that also a region with an extensive overpopulation of those residing without legal sanction?
Minus the electoral college, that's precisely the sway California pulls in the United States, says Merline.
Let me break in here before going CPA-ish on you to warn that numbers and percentages follow for those who couldn't care less or find such information tedious. For me, however, the numbers explain why the United States needs an electoral college in its presidential elections.
As things stood Nov. 17, Trump earned 46.78 percent of the popular vote compared with 47.69 percent for Clinton, he writes.
"A closer look at the election returns show that Hillary's lead in the popular vote is entirely due [his emphasis] to her oversized margin of victory in uber-liberal California," Merline says, placing the state's percentage at 61 to 33 percent in her favor. Of the more than 10 million votes cast across California, Clinton's numerical lead was about three million, he said.
Trump carried 30 to Clinton's 20 states. Of those he won, Merline said, Trump garnered 56.5 percent of the vote to 53.2 percent for Clinton in states she won.
A map of counties across America shows Trump swept 2,626 counties to Clinton's 487, according to the Associated Press. Say, ya suppose our electoral college should automatically award binding votes to those who win counties rather than states? It would keep things closer to the people than entire states.
Merline pointed out of the Democratic-leaning states Clinton won, her margin of victory averaged 53.5 percent to Trump's 40.2, a margin of 13.3 percent.
He says had the same margin been applied in California rather than the lopsided percentage of popular votes she received there, Trump would have gained (and she'd lost) enough votes for him to be leading nationally by some 400,000 votes.
Interesting also that Clinton won California by nearly the same margin as she lost in Arkansas.
The electoral college was developed precisely so all states would have a voice in presidential elections. Without it, Merline adds, "abnormally partisan states like California could permanently dominate the nation's politics." I prefer the word "would" rather than "could."
I've neither the energy nor inclination to crunch all the numbers Merline shared, especially when I know someone as vigilant and capable as him already has. And, because I've become far more mistrustful of the mainstream media's veracity and equally biased election polling, I'll take the editor's word for it.
However, I presume that while the basics of his message remains unchanged, the precise numbers are bound to have changed a smidgen, especially in light of the recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan, both concluding in Trump's favor.
Guards a-changin'
Understandable angst permeates the Washington County Courthouse as Jan. 1 approaches and employees learn whether they will keep their positions or move on.
Incoming County Judge Joseph Wood is no different than any other top executive in choosing employees who share his goals and visions. It's called politics.
The Joseph Wood I know is a man of principle who's bound to disappoint some by making necessary decisions.
In the process, he also will build a chief administrative office the people can believe in, beginning with transparency while doing what he genuinely believes best for the county, rather than himself or cronies. I know you won't prove me wrong, Joseph.
Outgoing County Judge Marilyn Edwards summarized political realities in a recent news account by reporter Scarlet Sims: "Every county judge has to do it their own way. I hate to see anyone lose their job, but it's out of my hands now."
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at [email protected].
Editorial on 12/18/2016