Please don't hate me for jumping with joy. I have been holding my joy for the last 8 years, I can't hold it any longer.
Let me explain my situation. I was fade up with establishment Republicans. When Trump declared his candidacy, I immediately jumped onboard with him, because he was non-politician, and ultimate outsider.
As you know, most establishment Republicans did not support him. Not only that, they were doing everything to sabotage his candidacy. This made my conviction for Trump even stronger. And, I extended my full support for him, knowing that there will be many obstacles along the way for Trump to be victorious.
As time passed on, I saw the movement Trump was building in the USA, as well as in the other parts of the world. He kept overcoming one obstacle after another. It was truly remarkable, and never seen before in the political history of USA. But, Media narratives of the Trump phenomena was very different. All I was hearing is - Trump is a fluke, has no viable path to victory at all. Even polls were all telling that there is no clear path to victory for him. I could not believe anything, I was hearing from the establishment pundits, and Media experts. I asked myself, may be they know something that I don't. This dilemma gave birth to the suspicion of biased electoral process, because that's the only plausible conclusion, I could envision under the circumstances. So, when Trump said Justice Department and electoral process are biased against him and they are trying to rig the election, he was saying the same thing I was telling to everybody.
Now, that he won, I am happy to admit that my suspicion about electoral system was wrong. In fact, US electoral process is the best in the world.
I am also very happy that Brexit is slowly becoming a reality.
Jiten Roy
From: "ANISUR RAHMAN anisur.rahman1@btinternet.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2016 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Hillary Clinton Does Have a Viable Legal Challenge to the Electoral College System
It looks like Jiten Roy has become a very much law abiding sanctimonious boffin, as his blindly supported man had won. But did he make any noise when Donald Trump was saying that the establishment, the security services, the election commission etc were all corrupt when he was in danger of losing? Donald Trump even said that if he loses, he would accept the election result. Was that a very much law abiding statement? Now that he has won, everything is alright, there is no corruption! And Jiten Roy is jumping with joy!
- AR
On Saturday, 10 December 2016, 16:56, "Jiten Roy jnrsr53@yahoo.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
This talk of wining the popular vote can be the consolation prize for the loser, but not for winning argument for Presidency. Liberals' are dragging it for too long. It's about time to realize the loss.
When you agree to play a game, you must follow the established rules and regulations of the game to win. The election game is played to gain the most electoral colleges (≥ 270), not most popular votes. So, candidates spend all effort to gain 270 electoral colleges. That's it.
Naturally, all candidates strategize game-plan to gain 270 electoral colleges, which require campaigning in as many states as possible, even in sparsely populated states, such as, New Hampshire, Maine, etc.
On the other hand, if the rules of the game was to gain most votes, candidates would have campaigned only in the heavily populated large states, such as New York or California, and small states would have been neglected forever.
Hillary got 78% votes in New York and 64% votes in California, where Trump did not campaign, which brought her popular vote count ahead of Trump.
Now, after losing the electoral college count, liberals are asking for changing the rules of the game. As recently as in 2000, Al Gore got the most popular votes also, but Bush became the President. At that time, liberals never cried so loud and so hard to change the rule.
Liberals need to grow up, if that's even possible!
Jiten Roy
From: "Sitangshu Guha guhasb@gmail.com [mukto-mona]" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
To: mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 9, 2016 10:11 PM
Subject: [mukto-mona] Re: {PFC-Friends} Hillary Clinton Does Have a Viable Legal Challenge to the Electoral College System
Electoral College (United States)
The United States Electoral College is the body that elects the president and vice president of the United States every four years. Citizens of the United States do not directly elect the president or the vice president; instead they choose "electors", who pledge beforehand to vote for the candidate of a particular party.[2][3]
Each state gets to choose as many electors as the combined total of the number of U.S. senators and representatives to which the state is entitled.[4] The District of Columbia gets at most the number of electors it would have if it were a state but not more than the number of electors of the least-populous state (currently three).[5] There are therefore currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 representatives and 100 senators in the House of Representatives and the Senate, plus the three electors for the District of Columbia. The Constitution bars any federal official, elected or appointed, from being an elector.
All states except Maine and Nebraska have chosen electors on a "winner-take-all" basis since the 1880s.[6] Under the winner-take-all system, all the electors that a state chooses are those that have pledged to vote for the candidate who ends up getting the most votes in that state. Maine and Nebraska use the "congressional district method", selecting one elector within each congressional district by popular vote and selecting the remaining two electors by a statewide popular vote.[7] Although no elector is required by federal law to honor their pledge, there have been very few occasions when an elector voted contrary to a pledge.[8][9] The Twelfth Amendment, in specifying how a president and vice president are elected, requires each elector to cast one vote for president and another vote for vice president.[10][11]
The candidate who receives an absolute majority of electoral votes (currently 270) for the office of president or of vice president is elected to that office. The Twelfth Amendment provides for what happens if the Electoral College fails to elect a president or vice president. If no candidate receives a majority for president then the House of Representatives will select the president, with each state delegation (instead of each representative) having only one vote. If no candidate receives a majority for vice president, then the Senate will select the vice president, with each senator having one vote.[12][13] On five occasions, most recently in the 2016 presidential election, the Electoral College system has resulted in the selection of electors with a majority pledged to a candidate who did not receive the most popular votes in the election.[14]
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Farida Majid <farida_majid@hotmail.com> wrote:
--Ms Clinton currently has 2.6 million more votes than Donald Trump in the popular count, but lost the election in November because of the idiosyncratic workings of the United States' Electoral College system — a result which academic Lawrence Lessig has said could be ruled unconstitutional.The process by which the United States elects a president is complicated — rather than US citizens voting for their head of state directly, representatives in the Electoral College choose the winner on behalf of their state.Almost all states operate a "winner-takes-all" system, which ignores voter margins. So for instance, Ms Clinton got 44 per cent of the vote in Georgia, but because Mr Trump got a larger percentage, none of the state's six representatives in the Electoral College are set to vote for her.In an article published by Medium, Mr Lessig said he and a number of other legal experts believed this could be illegal because it defies the constitutionally enshrined principles of "equal protections" and "one man, one vote". It means not all votes are treated in the same way and some people do not get a say at all.http://readersupportednews. org/opinion2/277-75/40725- focus-hillary-clinton-does- have-a-viable-legal-challenge- to-the-electoral-college- system
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PFC-Friends" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pfc-friends+unsubscribe@ googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
Sitanggshu Guha
__._,_.___
Posted by: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
****************************************************
Mukto Mona plans for a Grand Darwin Day Celebration:
Call For Articles:
http://mukto-mona.com/wordpress/?p=68
http://mukto-mona.com/banga_blog/?p=585
****************************************************
VISIT MUKTO-MONA WEB-SITE : http://www.mukto-mona.com/
****************************************************
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
-Beatrice Hall [pseudonym: S.G. Tallentyre], 190
__,_._,___