Hillary Clinton won popular votes by about four hundred thousand
votes (1). We should take into account that more than 43% of eligible voters
did not vote (2). Out of 325 million
Americans (3), about 231.5
million were eligible to vote (4). 209 million American
are 18 years old and over (5). This means that
over 20 million Americans are over 18, but could not vote. The large number of
this population consists of those who have been sentenced to prison as felons,
majority of which are non-white and belong to the lowest economical class.
There are 538 Electoral College and a winner of the race needs to
get more than 50% of this number, or 270 votes. But why the person who gets
less popular vote wins? The answer to this question goes back to the reason
that votes of delegates (instead of one man one vote) was created, which seemed
to be a way to prevent racism. As racism has changed form and shape
(considering the 20 million who cannot vote, ID requirement, gerrymandering, and
tools in prohibiting certain racial groups to vote) the question becomes,
whether continuing with this system in the 21st century is
necessary.
There have always been blue states and red states, with only a few
states that are called swing states which may change color in each election.
These handful swing states in fact determine the outcome of the election. That is
why election results are always very close.
When the result of the election came out, it took many by surprise.
Going back a few months and looking at the election process historically, Trump’s
victory should have been foreseen. In the primary, he out-voted his competitors
by a wide margin. With every debate a few of them fell off the long line of
candidates. The last remaining persons had to concede at the beginning of the
primary election, as some were not even able to gather enough votes in their own
state. Most of the grossly rich Republicans, such as Koch Brothers, changed
side to the enemy. However, Trump did not need their votes. His base was
ordinary people who always voted Republican, in addition to those swing voters
who have been disfranchised with the system for years. This later group is
responsible for Hillary’s loss.
Since 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected as president, thanks to
American hostages in Iran and Khomeini’s timing to make sure Carter was not
re-elected, the politics of the US has been increasingly shifting towards Right
in every election, even when Democrats like Clinton and Obama were elected. Right-leaning
policies supported by Christian Right and mega-bucks, evolved into adopting
policies of Neo-Conservatives, since George W. With the widening disparity
between the rich and the poor and melting middle-class, destruction of
infra-structure, manufacturing sector fleeing abroad, and expanding war on
behalf of multi-national corporations to name a few, people seem to be fed up
with the system. There were two candidates whose campaign revolved around
anti-establishment, both of which gathered massive crowds. The most disappointing
part of this election, however, was submission of Sanders to the establishment,
which is clear today that if he stayed in the race and fought with the
Democratic Party demagogues, he would have been elected last Tuesday. Not only
he sold himself out, he also destroyed morality of millions of youngsters who
believed in a brighter future, and as a result, all their hopes were shattered.
In any country that
government is elected through a voting process, there are two powers
controlling the destiny of people; the government and the establishment. The establishment
sets policies of the government through think thanks and other advisory groups.
The establishment (or as John Pilger calls it “The Invisible Government) sets
the stage through its most important and its most effective arm, the media. In the
past, there were a few newspapers (such as New York Times or Guardian) who did not
necessarily follow demands of the establishment. Today, every major newspaper, radio
and television station, news website, and any other media in any shape or form
is the mouthpiece of the establishment. Since the beginning of 1950s, when the
US government expanded its hegemony around the world, corporations expanded and
factories produced cheaply (due to the exploitation of raw materials from other
countries, using US military might), and export of finished goods made US
currency strong enough to dictate world trade through the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund. As a result, Americans have benefited from less
expensive shopping items, and enjoyed standard of living incomparable to other
countries. This trend was diminished in mid-seventies, and with the new wave of
conservative policies of the eighties and neo-cons of the 21st
century. Americans’ belief in their government started shrinking. With globalization
and departure of manufacturing jobs, a wave of anti-establishment began
growing.
However, the establishment was still able to put in place its own
governments. In another words, until recently the establishment and the
government were the same. This year, with Brexit in England and election in the
US, the establishment lost the government. Since Sanders’ and Trump’s campaigns
were structured based on the anti-establishment ideology, they both attracted
massive followings. Sanders finally gave in to the establishment. We know that
all arms of the establishment, the white house, elected representative of both
houses, pentagon, and many other sectors of the establishment, especially media,
have been against Trump since his candidacy. This perhaps regenerated his followers
to stay with him. His stance against Middle-East wars and suggesting dialogue
with adversarial nations, instead of antagonism, has made him many enemies in
the establishment. On the other hand, his racism, sexism, machismo, and fowl
mouth had made it very easy for the establishment to depreciate him. He is in
fact in a unique situation to pass almost any law he desires, having both
houses filled with majority Republican for at least a couple of years, and a
new selection of a right-wing Supreme Court judge that would tip the court
towards extreme right. Future will show whether he will act on his words (many
of them have been changed already and unfortunately), or he will bow before to
the establishment, as Sanders did.
