The Election Wasn’t Rigged. Now What?

The Election Wasn’t Rigged. Now What? November 9, 2016

I had hoped to be writing a very different blog post this morning. But the election results are in, and Donald Trump has been elected the next president of the United States.

The New York Times is still showing Hillary Clinton as having won the popular vote. And so discussions about reform of the electoral process needs to occur, as it has for a long time.

But more importantly, Trump’s victory shows that the fears he played on, that the election is rigged and that powerful conspiracies are at work to keep the little guy down. Those fears have been used to manipulate people for a very long time, and have led to some of history’s worst atrocities. Trump’s victory shows that his claims were false, does it not?

As I look for something to cling to, as the future looks dim and uncertain, I grasp at the possibility that perhaps, if this makes the privileged who felt disenfranchised feel less so, perhaps they can let go of some of the uncritical thinking and xenophobia that has left them open to manipulation in the manner that led to Trump’s victory.

That is probably just wishful thinking. But it is all I have left this morning…


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Who is doing the manipulation, Donald Trump or the democrats? You might want to ask Donna Brazile if the election process is rigged, since she fed CNN “town hall” questions to Hillary that helped her cheat in a televised ‘rigged’ debate. Hillary didn’t have the guts to report this and instead showed her true character. You may want to ask NBC, ABC and CBS, what has happened to journalism today when their campaign reporters and political commentators are hacks for the democrat party, turning a blind eye to corrupt democrat politicians, sexual predators and how Hillary’s charity took millions of dollars from countries where women are treated as slaves and homosexuals are thrown off buildings. Ask the mainstream media why news is ignored that would help the populace know the truth, but instead publish innuendoes and accusations that are known to be false but spread about anyway. Our democracy isn’t broken, but journalism is. If it was working, it would be keeping an eye out for corruption in our government and reporting about it. And Obama would have been impeached years ago. Where did the billions of dollars spent for shovel-ready jobs go? Obama’s own personal charity work on behalf of the democrat party. Our tax dollars paid gone to waste.

    What is next? Hillary will be indicted for “Pay to Play” while Secretary of State and for her influence peddling through her crime family charity. Then a pardon from President Obama before he finally gets thrown out of the White House. And the sun will come out tomorrow.

    • On what basis do you claim to know these things? I notice there is one particular media outlet that you didn’t criticize. Would I be right in guessing that you are trusting information that they have provided to you? Would you care to comment on why you trust them but not others?

      • If you only get your news through the outlets I mentioned then you will not be well informed on political issues. I suggest people listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity on their radio programs. This is where I go to get an honest reporting of the news. The Drudge Report is also a great place to start with many links to honest and unbiased news reporting. FOX is more balanced in their news at the risk of running off viewers who may not agree with any one position presented.

        • I asked you what leads you to believe that those sources are trustworthy while the rest of the more mainstream media is not. What leads you to conclude that Fox is balanced? What leads you to believe that Limbaugh and Hannity are trustworthy? What research have you done that supports this conclusion?

          • The mainstream media doesn’t interview the women that were sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton. Sean Hannity does on FOX and his radio program. The mainstream media only reports how Obama appears to be working not about the $3.6 million dollar golfing weekend he spent with Tiger Woods at taxpayer expense.

            http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2016/10/28/good-king-obamas-golf-trip-tiger-woods-cost-taxpayers-3-6-million-dollars/

            I check multiple sources for my news, you can’t just get your news tuned into CNN or FOX for that matter and be well informed. You just can’t trust one source for honest journalism. That’s how my research is done.

          • I know you believe Breitbart too. What I want to know is why. http://www.snopes.com/obama-golf-outing-with-tiger-woods/

            Bill Clinton was not running for office in this election, but I think everyone is nonetheless aware of his actions. We also heard things about Melania Trump and his previous wives, but I don’t consider those relevant either.

            So my question remains, not whether you read multiple outlets that show the same ideological bias and have a tendency to circulate the same kinds of misinformation. My question is why you choose to believe them even despite all the times they have been shown to mislead and misrepresent.

          • TrevorN

            I’m sure you already know the answer to that!

      • Otto T. Goat

        Scroll down to media collusion.

        http://www.vaskal.ca/podestafiles

  • Dan

    The problem with abolishing the electoral vote is that it will give a very unfair advantage to the urban centers. Clinton will win the popular vote, and most of it will come from major metropolitan areas and coastal states. It shows that, just by pandering to urban populations and totally ignoring the rest of country, one can still win the election. Look at the blue states Clinton won, the blue counties are on urban areas, while most of the rest of the state are rural red.

    Democrats have always wanted to abolish the electoral college. They know they have the numbers. They couldn’t care less what rural folks wanted, those gun-toting, bible clinging hicks, as they pursue their progressive agenda.

    So stop whining Dems. Instead of trying to rig future elections and giving undue power to urban areas, why not make jobs and policies that are conducive to blue collar workers and rural people. You’re losing their support.

    And BTW, I am saying this as a liberal myself, and I am shocked that Trump won. But all this post-election sour graping shows that we are just as vindictive as the people on the right. I do not support abolishing the electoral college, it evens out the voting power of urban and rural states, and forces Dems to cater to a broad swath of the people, not just latte sipping urbanites.

    • Herro

      >…a very unfair advantage to the urban centers.

      How is that an unfair advantage? An urban center with a million inhabitants will have just as much influence on the results as a rural country with a million inhabitants.

      • Dan

        If you don’t understand, then you are part of the problem.

        • Herro

          Every person having an equal seems pretty fair to me. Giving some persons essentially 3 votes, and others just 1 vote seems pretty unfair to me.

          And the current system means that the vote of e.g. Democrats in Kansas counts for absolutely nothing.

          • jjramsey

            On the flip side, the current system also means that, say, the votes of Republicans in California — of which there are many — also effectively don’t count.

            In other words, both parties would have motivation to ditch the Electoral College.

    • histrogeek

      The fear of urban centers being disproportionately represented is the long standing justification for the electoral college. I get the argument, bang for the buck. You don’t have to go traveling everywhere to pick up a handful of vote.

      Problem is that now rural areas are actually over-represented in both the Senate and the Electoral College. When 2 of the last 5 elections have returned the candidate who got fewer votes (and in 2000 Gore had more votes even before the Florida shenanigans). That’s a problem of the system not representing the electorate.
      Now I’m totally behind the idea that the Democrats need to bring some of their passion for justice to impoverished rural areas, even/especially where whites live. It continues to gag me that West Virginia is a red state, as if John L. Lewis and Richard Trumka were the Ghost of Christmas past.
      But that had nothing to do with a system that produces the wrong result for a democracy, namely that the candidate with the most votes wins.

  • Kati

    Well, I personally believe the election was rigged. It was just rigged in DT’s favor all along (which is why he went on the offensive about it as a distraction).

    The leaked emails claim he was being used by Dems as a pied piper candidate (to, as the story goes, attract problematic vermin and drown them in the river; or in his case, that swamp he has his supporters obsessed with; considering his being pushed by and getting a front cover spread on a KKK newspaper, it seems he was successful with Step 1).

    Add to that the mainstream media not even bothering to forcefully fact check him most times; purposefully misguiding people with polls making it seem that HRC would win to make those who didn’t want DT, but didn’t like HRC either, falsely secure, so they’d stay home; their purposely staying away from certain issues, like his obviously racist treatment of the Central Park 5, his being in court for fraud and raping a 13 year old, soon, etc.; and said mainstream media admitting to giving him millions+ in coverage and free advertising (despite claims from his followers that they were biased against him). Early voter machines were proven to have been switching votes from other candidates to DT against the voters’ wishes, too, and we already know about the false Republican claim of voter fraud and their pushing voter ID with their own argument for supporting it being that it’ll suppress votes. Everything came together in a well-planned recipe for disaster.

    And the way so many self-identifying Christians support him as their King Cyrus, while, at the same time, thinking BHO, of all people, is the antichrist, is just crazy. People, apparently, wouldn’t know an/the antichrist if he stood on stage and laughingly told the crowd that they are so amoral, they’d not even reconsider voting for him if he shot someone in the middle of 5th avenue (guess saying half his voter base is deplorable is worse than his alluding to the idea that his entire supporter base is amoral lol).

    Now we have to deal with his employing his own children, having an overt white supremacist and anti-Semite as his advisor, and his already seemingly backing out of his campaign promises. For those into eschatology, we very well could have just seen something on par with 2 Thess 2:3-4 in part, especially considering DT’s planning on making the “ultimate peace deal” for Israel and the Palestinians, and things such as his family name including “Christ” and his mother’s name being Mary, and whatnot.

    This will be an interesting four years, to be sure.