So says long time leftist activist and professor James Petras.

By James Petras

Information Clearing House

November 18, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – Every aspect of this year’s US Presidential election has been fraught with myths, distortions, fabrications, wishful thinking and invented fears. 

We will proceed to discuss facts and fictions.

Electoral Participation

The mass media, parties and candidates emphasized the ‘unprecedented voter turnout’ in the elections.  In fact, 48% of the eligible voters abstained. 

In other words, nearly half of the electorate did not vote.  There were many reasons, including widespread disgust at both major party candidates and the weakness of ‘third parties’.  This includes disappointed Bernie Sanders supporters angry over the Democratic Party’s cynical manipulation of the primary nomination process.  Others were unable to vote in their neighborhoods because US elections are held on a regular workday, unlike in other countries. Others cast protest votes against economic programs or candidates reflecting their distrust and sense of impotence over policy.  Eligible voters generally expressed reservations over the gap between campaign promises and post campaign policies.  These political attitudes toward elections and candidates are deep-seated among those who ‘stayed home’.

In contrast among registered voters (53% of the electorate) over 90% cast their ballot.  Ultimately, the presidential elections were decided by just half of the eligible voters with the winning candidate receiving about 25% eligible votes.  This is not a robust mandate.  Furthermore, Clinton may have ‘lost’ with the plurality of popular votes, since the US Presidency is ultimately decided by the ‘Electoral College’.  In this case, Trump secured more states earning substantially more Electoral College votes, while the losing candidate’s votes were more concentrated in big cities and large coastal states.

READ MORE