(1/2017) The results from the 8 November Presidential election show the Republicans will retain a majority in both the House of Representatives and Senate. The White House will also be in GOP control for the first time since 2008. President elect Donald Trump is expected to take the oath of office in January having won the needed "electors" in the
Electoral College by 306 to Hillary Clinton's 232. Clinton was reported to have won more of the actual counted or popular votes by a margin of 65,459,266 to Trump's 62,815,410. All the same, Trump remains the winner in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. This despite most of the major candidates, including Trump, bemoaning the process as having been rigged.
Very briefly- the Electoral College is unique to the American Presidency and is described in Article 2 of the Constitution. It is further clarified in the 12th Amendment of 1804 that advanced the election process. It may have been implemented as a means to transmit information for the early colonists rather than a voting system objective. The "college"
reflected Congressional districts of varied populations. But it could not include any office holders of the Executive branch or Congress to cast the votes of their constituencies. In that electoral system, the voters vote for the electors not the President. Also, the electors are not obliged to vote as the voters specified. In practice they almost always have done so. There
have been 157 cases of elector non-compliance in the nation's history. None have altered the outcome of any election.
With modern technology- the votes can be quickly tallied and popular ones counted even faster than by the elector vote process. Despite that, it is very difficult to change a political process that dates to the founding of the nation itself. Efforts to reform it haven't addressed that issue. It should be reviewed as in five instances including this
year's poll- the electoral vote beat he popular one. The 538 lector’s votes will be formally announced in the Senate this January. There is a real issue of propriety as to the process as it doesn't serve voter interest in electing the optimal candidate.
The Electoral College admittedly hasn't always reflected the popular will, but seems to benefit the vote organizers better than the citizenry. The selection of Trump himself must have taken place in a power vacuum as he does have a lengthy history of legal charges both in state and federal courts. He was linked to about 3,500 court issues - mostly
civil, but some criminal- both as a defendant and a plaintiff. Tax issues are a key concern to New York lower courts where he still faces several dozen charges having also settled a $25 million class action lawsuit there last November just after the election. He even has a rape claim filed by a then minor in the mid 1990's which the courts haven't dropped since its April
filing. If President he would have to appear in court for many of the legal issues if subpoenaed.
The election issue, while obviously important - does appear to be a consensus of deal makers reflecting private sector interests- especially relevant to the economy. US money entrusted to the Federal Reserve, for instance, is accessible to most all central bankers for self regulated use that can and does skew regional politics. Lending is unchecked and
far left programs especially for the Far East have benefitted. Host control of a nation's own assets must be reestablished so benefit can be afforded actual producers in sectors that assess and meet demand. Clout and manipulation needed to artificial program redirects, as vote rigging, presume a vary potent and supportive power structure. That would probably confirm
assertions of electoral irregularity and fraud.
The political assent appears under scrutinized given the importance of the objective in majority rule and systemic coherence. Economic control that affects most all the populace of the world in central bank mergers implies a world, systemic coup d’etat or extra legal political change. The centralized powers that merged often antagonistic, economic
systems could only be afforded with political assent. Common markets abroad such as the European Union, Latin America's UNASUR or Africa's SADC to name a few of the same general design - merge politics and economics and can dictate cultural standards as well. That of a small control group which has limited affiliation to public accountability. Debt, unemployment and mass
migrations are among the results.
Access to political or other social systems is important and should be linked to accords and democratic voting one method. Predictable following of systemic requirements remains vitally important to their longevity. As to politics- ideally there would be a subtle "steering" to afford the varied underlying interests their opportunities to produce. Right
now they integrate the varied concerns with really suspect motives and again it appears dangerously self-serving to the benefit of the controlling interests.
There has to be a return to autonomy of action within a framework of regulated competition where host participants stratify to the ability and interest of all sectors to include politics and economics. A counter coup to scrutiny of accords which does afford that standard is overdue. Whoever has been able to personally benefit from merging the systems
for their own personal gain, are now facing increased scrutiny and probable sanction. The de facto lifestyle doesn't approximate the de jure legal guidelines. Degradation and unrest tied to an otherwise voiceless citizenry the result. Purge the politics of the presumed and admitted manipulators and here at least the social discipline should allow stability and growth.
Ralph Murphy is a former member of the CIA Headquarters Staff in Langley, VA.
Read past editions of Ralph Murphy's Common Cents