Like a compromise, when the premise is wrong, no good can come from it.
We are now in deep dudgeon over the allegation the Russians hacked the election. On reflection, the assertion is ridiculous and as a consequence we are debating and wasting time on what should be a non-issue.
Why would the Russians want to influence the outcome of our election and if they could, why would they prefer one candidate over another? The Russians need nothing from us and we need nothing from them. If it is to have another country under our influence as opposed to that of Russia, who benefits? Could it possibly be the military industrial complex who needs customers to stay in business? They have plenty of business as it is having made the American public paranoid that unless we keep producing armaments we are going to be invaded. The current candidate is ISIS who, in several countries cannot even oust the government that has been subjugating them. The previous culprit, the Soviet Union, could not have possibly invaded or even wanted to invade the United States. Like us, their military industrial complex led the Russian people to believe we had designs on the Soviet Union. When Gorbachov realized what this was doing to his country he was able to put a stop to it and the country disintegrated. Putin is trying to put it back together in a new form and is succeeding with his annexation of the Crimea. We were powerless to stop him.
If it was Russia’s objective to help install one candidate over another, which one would they choose? If it was Clinton, she has already proven to be a seller of influence as exposed by the Wikileaks disclosures, perpetrated not by the Russians but by a man cooped up for the past several years in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London. If those disclosures were never made, Clinton would have probably won in a landslide. As it were, she still got more votes than Trump and their lies the cause of discontent on the progressive side of the ledger.
The framers of the Constitution constructed the Electoral College system so that only one of their own would ever become President and insure those who favor state’s rights could not upset their monopoly on power. They failed to realize the flaw when, in the second election an anti-federalist, Thomas Jefferson got to be Vice President and would fill the office if John Adams died. The result was the twelfth amendment that insures the President and Vice President will be of the same party. A popular vote was never contemplated because the more populous states would insure a candidate from a smaller state could never be selected. The addition of more States, which was not a certainty in 1789, ended up causing this system to result in the more populous states ending up with more votes. Because the system was never abandoned in favor of a popular vote of everyone over 18, it resulted in the election of someone who got less popular votes than their opponent. It has happened several times and the schism it has created between the haves and the have nots has been exacerbated by the fact the government now controls the economy and determines, through the tax code, who get how much of what.
It is easy to blame the Russians for Clinton’s loss because they cannot defend themselves and the Republicans having a possible nightmare trying to prove a negative. If Putin confessed, he would be called a liar because, if the Russians admitted a preference it is hard to see how they could have effected the vote count. Perhaps a poll should be taken of who voted for Clinton because the Russians bribed them. Unfortunately, that poll has already been taken, it was called the 2016 election. Trump played the system and got the vote in the key most populous states and Clinton did not.
It matters little since the economic damage has already been done and nothing Clinton, or Trump could do, even with pen and phone. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are going to change the flawed economic system the country has adopted.