Redneck Review
No. 85  12/5/2016
Another week goes by, and articles aplenty appear which discuss the electoral college and minimum wages. And like the question asked in last week's review, why should anyone want us to move more towards socialism when history and common sense tellit is a sure road to poverty and disaster, so too does the recent clamor for a popular votefor president and a higher minimum wage pose very serious questions.
Should the popular vote edge held by Hillary, and the electoral count lead by Trump remain unchanged even after a potential recount in three important states, it can be argued that the 2016 results definitely put the brakes on our country's slow march towards socialism, and hopefully a turn back to less government regulation, and more individual freedom. The positive response of the stock market since the results of election day tends to support this conclusion. Thus a popular vote decision this fall might have taken us further down the road proposed by self-acclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, and more or less endorsed by his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Lovers of freedom and the old American way should be happy with the results, and thus thankful for the system which produced them!
An excellent editorial by Chuck Malloy can be found in the Dec 4th issue of the Lewiston Tribune. Mr. Malloy makes the comment "Critics say the Electoral College is outdated, and that the only fair way to elect a president is through the popular vote, which was won by Clinton." Later on Mr. Malloy adds "Do you know what we'd get by letting the popular vote decide the presidential election winner? Welcome to Bulgaria."
He goes on to say "The Bulgarian election had 22 candidates, and 22 parties represented in that field." He adds: "But for the flaws of the Electoral College, it does a good job of narrowing the field... only two candidates have a chance of winning the electoral vote, the Republican and Democratic nominees. Open it up to the popular vote, and you would have a political demolition derby."
Malloy adds, "Without an electoral college, we could have a jungle election that would include all 17 Republicans and four Democrats... there would be no way to keep them off of the ballot. We could be looking at President-elect Jeb Bush with 17% of the popular vote, barely beating out Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz. Donald Trump and Clinton could be making vacation plans---in Bulgaria, for all anyone would care." Hey! What he is saying is that no electoral system, and Hillary would not have a majority of the popular votes today!!
So we might ask, would we be willing to accept a president with only a small percentage of the total national vote? Would we have to have costly run off elections to narrow the field, until one would get a majority? And at the very end of the Malloy column, it is asked, "In a close election, how would national recounts be conducted...?" In my mind, we need to be thankful for the wisdom of our founding fathers who gave us the Electoral College system!
And a mandatory minimum wage? Makes no sense! After all, the $15/hr proposed recently, is #1: Not enough! Do the math and it comes to a bit above $30,000 a year. Better of course than smaller incomes, but why not boost it to $20, or even $30/hr? Annual incomes would then be over $40,000, or $60,000! Why would that not be even better? Why, because of #2:No one, small business or huge company can afford to pay anyone more than that worker is worth! Force a higher minimum, and you deny marginal workers a chance to get lower paying jobs from which they can work their way to higher ones! Ouch! Increased unemployment!
Jake Wren

To the Editor
Regarding your reply to “anonymous” of Dec. 1, 2016: Thank you for reminding us of everyone’s right to express his/her views. And that we NEED to read opposing viewpoints to be well informed.
I fell that “group think” (lack of opposing viewpoints) from the liberal national press was a large factor in Donald Trump becoming President-Elect.
I feel this way because – for reasons I do not know (opinion, may not be fact) the national press gave Mr. Trump the most time and attention during the primaries. More than the other 25 hopefuls combined.
After Mr. Trump became the Republican nominee they set about tarnishing the “knight in shining armor” image they had created. They failed.
The press focused on Mrs. Clinton’s may (scandal-plagued) decades of public service. And that she is a woman. It just wasn’t enough to make her the choice of a large number of states (19 I believe) the national press was not aware of how many Americans did not approve of Mrs. Clinton’s platform or history.
Thank you again for recognizing the weakness of group think and promoting free speech.
Pat Gehring
Cottonwood

Home

Classified Ads