Subject: Fw: Boston Globe, November 11, 2016
From: "fariborz fatemi" <[email-masked]>
To: "fariborz fatemi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 09:26:59 +0000 (UTC)

The Boston Globe
Commentary                                          November 11, 2016 Fariborz S. Fatemi
The question which is on everyone’s lips is what happened inthe election of 2016?  The answer issimple: turnout, turnout, turnout.   In 2016, just 65 per cent of those of votingage are registered, and of that group, only an estimated 55 per centvoted.  In 2008, 61 per cent voted and in2012, it was 58 per cent, and as we know, in both instances, President Obamawon.  To put it another way, Donald Trumpwon with fewer votes than Mitt Romney, losing his election in 2012, and fewervotes than John McCain losing in 2008.   It is estimated that Secretary Clinton has wonthe popular vote by a quarter million votes, but she received 6 million fewervotes than President Obama in 2012 and 10 million fewer votes than what Obamagot in 2008.  There are a number of factorsfor this lower turnout. Just to name a few: In the last several years, because of Republican governors and majoritiesin the Republican legislatures, much effort took place to restrict the vote.  An example, there are 300,000 eligible votersin Wisconsin who did not have the right ID and Secretary Clinton lost the stateby 27,000 votes.  Secondly, the SupremeCourt gutted the Voting Rights Act, opening the door for more shenanigans fromthe Republican governors and legislatures. Another example, many voting sites and many early voting dates wereeliminated, making voting as difficult as possible. And, nine days before theelection, the FBI director wrote a letter to the Congress about SecretaryClinton’s emails, later writing again, never mind. That action did enough toturn off voters who decided that both candidates were so awful, why vote? Nexttime, someone asks what happened, point to the turnout.