Twitter sends me a list of "hot" twits^H^H^H^H^H tweets.
(Why do I put up with this? There's a switch to shut the feed off. Although, really, if I'm going to shut off their misfeed, I might as well just remove my account. Stupid anti-social mis-networked gadgets.)
Today's hot tweet: Some guy who claims to work for the New York Times posts something that someone who claims to be an elector says about declaring himself a faithless elector.
Now maybe it is all as it seems and Suprun is a tweeter who [works^H^H^H^H^H for^H^H^H posts editorials ] on the NYT and is an elector, and has declared that he has no faith in the election process that made Trump the winner of the last election.
I could go with that. I can understand a lack of faith in the last election, especially.
The election process needs to changed, to reduce the influence of partisan organizations.
But I have a question. Who does he plan to vote for?
Hillary is no more qualified, and, statistically speaking, got no clearer popular affirmation.
(When you study statistics, you understand that an election is a statistical experiment, and a difference as small as we have here is not a meaningful difference. Nobody can really claim to have won in any sense but the letter of the law, and the letter of the law is not the spirit of the law. Not meaningful.)
Whether Clinton or Trump goes in, we are heading for another impeachment.
Vote protest?
Vote for the vice presidential candidate?
Except, really, we probably don't need to know.
But I do think voting for Hillary would be just as faithless as voting for Trump.
[After posting, I note he indicates favoring Kasich. I had forgotten about the Republican candidates who had lost in the primary. Well enough.]
