Challenging the results of the U.S. College of Electors vote is nothing new, Armstrong Economics writes.
Armstrong Economics is a serious publication. It takes the science of economics seriously. It hasn’t got much time for ideologies.
The College of Electors, Armstrong Economics postulates, is supposed to have final say on who becomes new President of the United States, based on the results of the vote within the individual electors’ states.
Except, the results can be challenged by both sides. The victors usually have no reason to do so, but for those who lost, well, that’s a different story altogether.
As Armstrong Economics points out, in 2017, the Democrats in the House tried very hard to have votes for Donald Trump in Alabama and Georgia struck.
In 2005, Barbara Boxer, now a retired politician who served as a United States Senator from California from 1993 to 2017, did her utmost to strike Ohio for George Bush.
According to the U.S. Constitution, it is the state legislators who pick the electors, not the governor. On top of that, the House of Representatives, combined with the Senate, can lawfully either accept or reject the Electoral College vote results. One of the reasons for rejection: confirmed fraud.
And that’s what’s going on right now: President Trump alleges the election was stolen from him due to widespread fraud.
Armstrong Economics adds another twist: the entire U.S. presidential election system is questionable, to put it mildly.
Why? Simply because there are no uniform federal requirements.
California seems to have put the challenger, Joe Biden, over the 270 Electoral College votes required to win. But: if you take California’s 55 Electoral College votes and split them in accordance with the popular vote result, the incumbent, Donald Trump would walk away with 19 Californian votes, Armstrong Economics stipulates.
Cynical jokes have been making rounds not only in the U.S., but around the world, too. They all deal with a highly unusual number of dead people casting their votes, and overwhelmingly for Biden.
Armstrong Economics, in this regard, mentions the state of Michigan in general and the city of Chicago in particular. Their record in deceased persons’ votes has been remarkable.
Not too shocking, after all. History tells us that Chicago especially is a hot seat for crime family-style voting, and has been for quite some time.
Another question Armstrong Economics poses: why use foreign-built technology for U.S. elections? Certainly, Dominion machines come from a next-door neighbour, Canada, but still: a foreigner can’t become a U.S. President, so, why should foreign-built technology help decide who becomes the new White House resident, that is, the de facto ruler of the country?
There exists a much easier way, done either online or in-person. Armstrong Economics calls it cross-referencing to tax records.
If you are not filing taxes, you do not vote. Can anything be simpler than that? Hardly.
That system of checks and balances, Armstrong Economics says, eliminates duplicate voting, illegal aliens, and dead people. If you can buy all kinds of toys, gadgets and paraphernalia online, and in a secure manner, too, why can’t you vote the same way?
That would alleviate all (or most) fears of fraud.
Yes, Armstrong Economics concludes, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case on fraudulent elections. It was an outrage and a disgrace to the nation.
It gives both sides the chance to claim from now and into eternity that they have won (or had the election stolen from them in bright daylight).
Where that can lead is beyond imagination, and the most often expected outcome would be violence.
What happened so far can hardly be outdone, except for the (still remote) possibility that the incumbent would prevail, and won’t have to vacate the premises at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20006, U.S.A.