Two points here.


“30 million people voted for Donald Trump.”

Where are your numbers from?

The final count, if we’re talking votes by people here, was as follows:

Clinton: 65,844,610 votes, or 48.2% of the total vote.

Trump: 62,979,636 votes, or 46.1 of the total vote.

(A difference of 2.86 million votes, with Clinton clearly outpacing trump.)

The remaining 5.7% of the vote went to other candidates & write-ins, and an estimated 100 million people — roughly 43% of eligible voters, which is nearly half — couldn’t be bothered to vote at all in the 2016 election.

To preemptively respond to what folks typically say at this point, yes, I am aware that voting for the POTUS isn’t a “popularity contest.” Yes, I’m aware of that little thing called the electoral college. However, the electoral college failed our country. They failed in fulfilling their most fundamental, basic obligation to the country, as designed by our founding fathers, which was to establish separation of powers, and to avert foreign interference, to serve as more of a nominating body than sole selector of the President.

Our founding fathers intended that the process of election would guarantee “that the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” — Alexander Hamilton, 1788.

But unfortunately, our current electoral college system looks nothing like what the founding fathers anticipated. Currently, our electoral college is composed of diehard political party activists chosen for their allegiance to their party, right or wrong. It’s a miracle that we even had the 10 “faithless electors” in the 2016 presidential election, who actually put country above party (thanks to the Hamilton Electors), because despite those faithless electors, we still have a supermajority GOP that can and does overrule, and suppresses voting districts by tactics like gerrymandering, often, “with surgical precision” (as it was accurately described in my state). There was no way the republican candidate wasn’t going to “win.”


On your point about me being wrong, I just have to ask: if you’re qualified to say the reader I was responding to was right, and that I was therefore wrong in thinking the reader was wrong… then, it seems like it’s all pretty arbitrary. Who gets to say who’s ultimately right or wrong?

I didn’t so much call the reader wrong as I attempted to make clear the points where the reader & I disagreed. I gave a rebuttal to the reader’s claim that trump was “far more intelligent than people give him credit for.” And I also wrote a word on the concept of what the reader called “different moral preferences,” and linked another piece that references Karl Popper’s paradox of tolerance.

Maybe it’s fair to say it’s not imbecilic “if one understands what one is doing,” but I’m not convinced that trump supporters fully understood the scope of what they were doing. As time will show, the folks who will end up with the most wounds are the ones who voted for him and are still with him; not the rich folks, they knew full well what they were doing, but the more rural folks who actually believed they were voting for the character trump played on The Apprentice.

Covering the intersection of culture, politics & equality. GenX. Mom of 3. Bylines: HuffPost, PopSugar, Scary Mommy; heard on NPR, SiriusXM, LTYM, TIFO podcast.

Covering the intersection of culture, politics & equality. GenX. Mom of 3. Bylines: HuffPost, PopSugar, Scary Mommy; heard on NPR, SiriusXM, LTYM, TIFO podcast.