Trump won't leave graciously, but Pence can and should

Michael Medved, Opinion contributor
·4 min read

When Joe Biden takes the oath of office as our 46th president he may find himself upstaged at his own inauguration. It won’t be his running mate who steals the limelight as the first female ever installed in either of our top two executive offices. Nor would the outgoing chief executive, Donald Trump, play his customary role as the focus of media scrutiny and public controversy; in fact, many Washington insiders expect him to become the fourth president in history to decline to attend the swearing-in of his successor.

If Trump does shun the national spectacle dramatizing the peaceful transfer of power, then Vice President Mike Pence could make a high profile decision to reshape his own political future and place in history. By standing with wife Karen on the Inauguration platform, surrounded by the Biden and Harris families, the vice president could definitively distance himself from Trump’s self-destructive refusal to concede his loss amid angry claims of a “stolen”, “rigged” election.

Trump won't go graciously

If those allegations continue, dramatized by demonstrations, street fights and ongoing law suits, Trump remains unlikely to offer the gracious congratulations that characterized defeated incumbents in the past. In 1992, the last president to lose a bid for re-election, George Herbert Walker Bush, told his supporters on election night: “I just called Governor Clinton over in Little Rock and offered my congratulations…and I want the country to know that our entire administration will work closely with his team to insure the smooth transition of power. There is important work to be done, and America must always come first. So we will get behind this new president and wish him well.”

Vice President Mike Pence on Nov. 13, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
Vice President Mike Pence on Nov. 13, 2020, in Washington, D.C.

Such a statement prior to the Inauguration would amount to a tacit admission by Trump that he never really believed the claims of massive fraud he’s promulgated so promiscuously since well before election day. It’s easier to imagine the MAGA Man heading out of town before the jubilant Democratic crowds begin jamming the capital city. That’s what John Adams did in 1801, after losing a bitter, toxic race to his old friend Thomas Jefferson. The sixth president, Adams’ son John Quincy, followed the same course of action when he evacuated Washington ahead of raucous celebrations for the victorious Andrew Jackson in 1829. The last sitting president to avoid participation in inaugural ceremonies, Andrew Johnson, stayed in his White House office signing last-minute papers while the heroic General Grant took the oath of office; Johnson may have feared booing from hostile crowds in 1869, having recently — and barely — survived impeachment and trial by a hostile Congress.

Trump's last days: Donald Trump whiffs on what's left of his presidency as COVID-19 deaths pass 250,000

Pence can contribute to a peaceful transfer

Unlike Johnson, Trump retains tens of millions of fiercely devoted followers and it’s not unthinkable he might summon them to attend a “counter inauguration” somewhere in the D.C. area far from the Capitol building. He could revel in revisiting the “stolen election” themes, emphasize his continued defiance of the establishment “swamp” and, no doubt, boast of a bigger crowd than “Sleepy Joe” Biden — regardless of the actual audience size for either man.

In this context, Vice President Pence could contribute powerfully to a peaceful transition and the mending of a badly frayed social fabric. At least he should welcome Kamala Harris and her husband Doug Emhof to the vice president’s residence at the Naval Observatory, to show them around their new digs, emphasizing their cordial relations. To turn up next day and to honor Biden’s assumption of power would also provide a personal Declaration of Independence from Trump’s angry, ugly obsessions.

For four years, Pence defended the president at every turn but as the Orange Overlord leaves office, he must become his own man at last. With Trump openly musing over his own potential candidacy for a triumphant 2024 return, and with other allies and family members available as more logical heirs to Trumpism, Pence would preserve, rather than damage a potential run of his own by displaying dignity and class to conclude his vice Presidency.

Presidential transitions: To prevent a future transition mess, Congress should fix the law

Most significantly, his participation in a cherished ritual of the Republic would signal recognition that the election and its winner both counted as legitimate. A platform appearance by the departing VEEP might be criticized as shallow symbolism but at a time of poisonous polarization, healing gestures can only help.

Michael Medved, a member of the USA TODAY Board of Contributors, hosts a daily radio talk show and is author, most recently, of "God's Hand On America: Divine Providence in the Modern Era."

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Biden's inauguration: How Trump's VP could help a peaceful transfer of power

Latest Stories

  • Arizona, Wisconsin certify election results for Biden, closing off another path for Trump

    While President Trump continues his increasingly desperate efforts to overturn the November election, Arizona and Wisconsin certified results Monday showing Joe Biden won both states.

  • Body of missing Instagram influencer Alexis Sharkey found on Texas road

    There were no visible wounds to the body and a cause of death hadn't yet been determined for the 26-year-old, police said.

  • China gave COVID-19 vaccine candidate to North Korea's Kim: U.S. analyst

    China has provided North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and his family with an experimental coronavirus vaccine, a U.S. analyst said on Tuesday, citing two unidentified Japanese intelligence sources. Harry Kazianis, a North Korea expert at the Center for the National Interest think tank in Washington, said the Kims and several senior North Korean officials had been vaccinated.

  • Charging the 'Beatles': Inside the case against IS militants

    As two Islamic State militants faced a judge in Virginia last month, Diane Foley listened from home through a muffled phone connection and strained to make out the voices of the men prosecutors say kidnapped her son before he was murdered. Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh stand accused of belonging to an IS cell dubbed “the Beatles,” an incongruously lighthearted nickname for British citizens blamed for the jailing, torture and murder of Western hostages in Syria. After geopolitical breakthroughs and stalemates, military actions in Syria and court fights in London, the Justice Department’s most significant terrorism prosecution in years was finally underway.

  • Trump allies to Michigan judge: Force Gov. Whitmer to overturn Biden's win, give state to president

    The allegations, provided without credible evidence of widespread fraud or misconduct, have been rebuffed in courts in other states.

  • Children can only have puberty blockers if they understand they're irreversible, High Court rules

    Trans children should not receive controversial puberty blockers unless they understand the risks, according to a landmark High Court ruling, as judges warn that most teenagers cannot give their consent. The ruling means that children who wish to undergo gender reassignment can now only legally consent to taking puberty blockers if they are able to understand the “long-term risks and consequences of the administration of” the drugs. The case had been brought against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which runs the UK’s only gender identity development service (GIDS) for children, by Keira Bell, a 23-year-old woman who began taking puberty blockers when she was 16 before “detransitioning”. She said the clinic should have challenged her more over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager. The legal challenge was also brought by a woman who can only legally be identified as ‘Mrs A’, the mother of a 15-year-old autistic girl who is currently on the waiting list for treatment. At a hearing in October, their lawyers said children going through puberty are “not capable of properly understanding the nature and effects of hormone blockers”. They argued that there is “a very high likelihood” that children who start taking hormone blockers will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause “irreversible changes” and that the NHS Trust offers "fairytale" promises to children because they are unable to give their consent to the sex-change process. However in the judgement handed down on Tuesday, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, said that children under 16 needed to understand “the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment” to be able to consent to the use of puberty blockers. The judges said in their ruling: “It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. “It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.” They added: “In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment. “Given the long-term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment.” During the High Court hearing in October, the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust - as well as University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, to which Tavistock refers children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria - argued that taking puberty blockers and later cross-sex hormones were entirely separate stages of treatment. But, in its ruling, the High Court said: "It is said therefore the child needs only to understand the implications of taking puberty blockers alone ... in our view this does not reflect the reality. "The evidence shows that the vast majority of children who take puberty blockers move on to take cross-sex hormones." The court added that both treatments were "two stages of one clinical pathway and once on that pathway it is extremely rare for a child to get off it". Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the ruling, Keira Bell said she was "delighted" with the High Court's ruling, adding that “common sense has prevailed”. "This judgment is not political,” she said, “it's about protecting vulnerable children." A statement was also read on behalf of her fellow claimant, Mrs A, which said: "I'm relieved to hear the court have understood and agreed with our concerns about... treating children and young people with puberty blockers." Their solicitor Paul Conrathe said the ruling was "an historic judgment that protects children who suffer from gender dysphoria". He added: "Ultimately this case was decided on the facts that were known by the Tavistock. "Ironically - and as matter of serious concern - despite its international reputation for mental health work, this judgment powerfully shows that a culture of unreality has become embedded in the Tavistock. "This may have led to hundreds of children receiving this experimental treatment without their properly informed consent." In response, a spokesperson for the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust said: “The Trust is disappointed by today’s judgment and we understand that the outcome is likely to cause anxiety for patients and their families. “Our first duty is to our patients, particularly those currently receiving hormone blocking treatment and we are working with our partners, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, to provide support for patients concerned about the impact on their care. “The Trust is seeking permission to appeal the judgment, and in the meantime, confirms its ongoing support for the review commissioned by NHS England being led by Dr Hilary Cass. “We will update our statement once we know the outcome of today’s further court proceedings.” Lui Asquith, from the trans children's charity Mermaids, said the ruling was a "devastating blow for trans young people across the country”. “We believe very strongly that every young person has the right to make their own decisions about their body and that should not differ because somebody is trans. "The court today has decided to treat trans young people differently to every other child in the country. "We believe that we're entering a new era of discrimination, frankly. We see day in, day out at Mermaids the positive impact hormone blockers can have on some trans young people - in all honesty, they can save lives. "They allow some young people to be able to go outside, engage in society, go to school, and we're now in a position whereby those young people are not necessarily going to be able to access it. "We're entering a new era of experimentation, that experiment being what happens to trans young people who need hormone blockers who can't get them."

  • Hamas Gaza chief tests positive for COVID-19, spokesman says

    Hamas's Gaza leader, Yehya Al-Sinwar, has tested positive for COVID-19, a spokesman for the Islamist militant group, which runs the Palestinian territory, said on Tuesday. Sinwar, 58, is "following the advice of health authorities and taking precautionary measures", spokesman Hazem Qassem said, without disclosing whether the Hamas chief was in quarantine. Sinwar, a former head of Hamas's security apparatus, became the movement's Gaza leader in 2017, six years after he was freed in a prisoner swap with Israel after more than 20 years in jail.

  • SC delays execution, citing lack of lethal injection drugs

    The South Carolina Supreme Court on Monday stayed the execution of a death row prisoner after corrections officials said they couldn’t obtain the necessary lethal injection drugs in time. Richard Bernard Moore had been scheduled to be put to death on Friday. The court scheduled the execution earlier this month after Moore exhausted his federal appeals.

  • Trump shares posts asking ‘why bother voting for Republicans?’ ahead of key vote that could decide Senate

    President launches attacks on his own party despite two decisive Senate races in Georgia next month

  • GOP Sen. Josh Hawley tries to explain how Democrats are both 'Marxists' and 'corporatists'

    Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) suggested Monday that he might oppose President-elect Joe Biden's nomination of Janet Yellen as Treasury secretary because Biden's Cabinet picks are "a bunch of corporate liberals and warmongers." Over the summer, The Bulwark's Tim Miller pointed out, Hawley told Fox News host Tucker Carlson that the Democratic Party "in thrall" to "the Marxist left.""Hawley could have ignored the criticism — after all, it’s not like his target audience is going to complain that he attacked the Democrats in two mutually exclusive ways," Jonathan Chait noted at New York. But Hawley, "a prep school kid with degrees from Stanford and Yale" who "still craves the respect of elites," evidently "felt compelled to show that he is not just a glib demagogue mouthing slogans." So this is how he reconciled his contradictory accusations:> Let me explain this to you. Corporate liberals are woke capitalists. The corporatists love critical race theory and all the other warmed-over Marxist garbage. They sell out working Americans and sneer at them at the same time. That’s the New Left https://t.co/pOrG5NdXsq> > — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) November 30, 2020If that doesn't make much sense to you, get in line. Some critics pointed out that Hawley's policies and fat donations from corporate interests aren't all that helpful to "working Americans," while others delighted in the word-salad incoherence of his explanation:> Tell us more about the corporate liberal Marxist capitalist critical-race-theorist socialist Wall Street leftist corporatist antifa fascist communists> > — Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) December 1, 2020> This is the kind of answer on an exam in high school where the teacher would say quit using a bunch of words you read or heard somewhere without putting anything together in a paragraph that makes sense.> > — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) November 30, 2020"Big corporations do not like Marxists who want to discredit and destroy the system," and "Marxists do not support uses of the American military," Chait summarized. But "the most precious line Hawley's lecture to Miller is 'Let me explain this to you.' As if any fool can see the obvious congruity of his two attacks on Biden. Only the elites can't spot the obvious. Just ask any regular hardworking Missouri farmer, and he'll explain that neoliberal corporate warlords are working hand in glove with Marxists to use critical race theory in order to advance Janet Yellen's candidacy for Treasury secretary."More stories from theweek.com Americans are choosing death over deprivation Our parents warned us the internet would break our brains. It broke theirs instead. Biden's favorability rating jumped 6 points since the election, is already higher than Trump ever hit

  • Turkish exploration vessel back in port ahead of EU summit

    Turkey's seismic exploration vessel Oruc Reis returned to port on Monday from disputed Mediterranean waters, less than two weeks before a European Union summit where the bloc will evaluate possible sanctions against Ankara. NATO members Turkey and Greece have conflicting claims to continental shelves and rights to potential energy resources in the eastern Mediterranean. Tensions flared in August when Ankara sent Oruc Reis to map out energy drilling prospects in waters also claimed by Greece.

  • AP PHOTOS: Animal attacks taking their toll in Kashmir

    Amid the long-raging deadly strife in Indian-controlled Kashmir, another conflict is silently taking its toll on the Himalayan region’s residents: the conflict between man and wild animals. According to official data, at least 67 people have been killed and 940 others injured in the past five years in attacks by wild animals in the famed Kashmir Valley, a vast collection of alpine forests, connected wetlands and waterways known as much for its idyllic vistas as for its decades-long armed conflict between Indian troops and rebels. The Himalayan black bear is at the heart of this trouble.

  • Biden Energy Policies Will Make Blue New Mexico See Red

    Lew Wallace, the former territorial governor of New Mexico (and author of Ben Hur), once said, “Every calculation based on experience elsewhere fails in New Mexico.”In so many ways Wallace was prescient about this beautiful, poor, and unique state in the American Southwest. One “calculation” about modern politics that would especially perplex him is the fact that a relatively poor but oil-rich Western state elects politicians that are so directly at odds with its economic best interest.After Texas and North Dakota, New Mexico is the third-largest oil-producing state in the U.S. The oil and gas industries combine to generate roughly 40 percent of its annual budget. Furthermore, New Mexico’s oil and gas resources are heavily concentrated on lands managed by the federal government. The central role of energy, especially energy extracted within the state’s borders and controlled by federal policy-makers, might lead one to believe that New Mexicans would vote for pro-energy Republicans in federal elections.Instead, New Mexico has become a safely blue state. It narrowly went for George W. Bush in 2004 but since then has gone for Democrats by wide margins. The situation is even more stark at the state level, where Democrats have had “trifectas” (total control of both houses and the governor’s mansion) for 60 of the past 90 years. The GOP hasn’t had such governing authority in the state for a single year since 1931 and, despite significant turnover, has not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since Pete Domenici retired in 2009.In 2020 Biden won the state 54.3 percent to 43.5 percent despite the fact that President Trump’s pro-energy policies have been a boon to the New Mexico economy and that the Biden administration’s energy policies are a dagger aimed at the heart of New Mexico’s economy.That “dagger” comes in the form of the numerous -- sometimes clear, often conflicting -- statements that candidate Biden made during the campaign. It is unclear what Biden will do about hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which enables oil and gas producers to access previously inaccessible oil and gas sources. He backed away from an outright nationwide ban late in the campaign. However, Biden has clearly stated that he would ban new gas and oil permits -- including fracking -- on federal lands.Targeting federal lands would devastate New Mexico’s oil and gas industry and its economy, because of the state’s large federal estate. According to the Institute for Energy Research, 34.7 percent of the land in New Mexico is federal. In fiscal year 2019, New Mexico received energy-related disbursement (from the federal Bureau of Land Management) of  $1.17 billion, the highest payment made in any state (Wyoming was next, with $641 million, and then Colorado, with $108 million). This was the highest payment from the bureau in the state’s history and compares with $455 million in FY 2017. A vast majority of this increased revenue is a result of fracking.Furthermore, data from the Global Energy Institute indicate that if energy production on federal lands were banned, New Mexico would lose 24,300 jobs (10,000 direct, 14,300 indirect and induced), a significant hit for a state with a workforce of around 900,000. Making matters worse, a good number of the “direct” jobs lost are good-paying -- something that is not easy to find in New Mexico, a state that consistently ranks among the poorest in the nation and has been hard-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Closing New Mexico’s federal lands to energy production entirely would cost the state $496 million in annual royalty collections, representing 8 percent of the state’s total General Fund Revenues.Biden’s proposed fracking ban is even too much for New Mexico’s Democratic governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, who has said that she’ll ask for an exemption from any future drilling ban. Acknowledging the tax-revenue contributions to education funding, Grisham explained to the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association conference in Santa Fe last October that “without the energy effort in this state, no one gets to make education the top priority.”To be sure, Lujan Grisham is broadly supportive of Biden’s energy policies. (She’s even on the president-elect’s short list for administration positions.) Both of them have stated that they would like to “transition out of fossil fuels” despite New Mexico’s financial dependence on the industry.But Biden’s aggressive anti-fossil-fuels stance as it relates to federal land not only puts him at odds with Lujan Grisham, it puts him far to the left of President Obama on the issue. In a 2012 presidential debate, Obama stated, “We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than the previous administration. . . . And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically; we’re encouraging it and working with the industry.”President Obama was of course considered an environmentalist by political opponents and supporters alike. His support for natural-gas right isn’t difficult to reconcile with his environmental track record. That’s because (when used in a new power plants), natural gas emits 50 to 60 percent less CO2  than a typical new coal plant.Obama understood the vast benefits of natural gas, including the fact that it was appropriate to drill for it on federal lands. During his tenure, natural-gas production rose some 35 percent, from approximately 21 million cubic feet to more than 28.4 million cubic feet.If he truly cares about the environment, Biden would be wise to follow his predecessor’s playbook. According to the EPA, U.S. net greenhouse-gas emissions went down by 10 percent from 2005 to 2018, and much of the contribution to that decline in recent years was “due to an increasing shift to use of less carbon dioxide-intensive natural gas for generating electricity and a rapid increase in the use of renewable energy in the electric power sector.” But if natural-gas prices rise -- and a ban on federal leasing is likely to contribute to higher prices -- these positive developments could go into reverse. The Energy Information Administration recently projected that higher natural-gas prices would cause coal’s share of power generation to increase from 18 percent to 22 percent in 2021.Obama also signed into law legislation that ended the U.S. government’s restrictions on crude-oil exports back in 2015.During the campaign, Biden faced tremendous pressure from the left wing of his political base to come out for policies such the Green New Deal and bans on fracking and other fossil-fuel-based energy production. Biden has never been associated with such hard-Left stances against economic policy and growth in the past. Remember, even Obama is to the right of where Biden campaigned.Let's hope that President Biden has a more realistic approach to energy than did candidate Biden. New Mexico’s economic future is certainly at stake, but so is the recovery of our nation’s virus-hobbled economy.Rather than instituting a blanket ban on production of oil and gas on federal lands, a better approach would be to recognize the benefits and work to make sure that any production is handled responsibly and safely. The growing American energy sector and American energy independence have delivered wins for the environment, for consumers, and for the U.S. and state economies such as New Mexico’s. Let’s keep it that way.

  • Thai protesters march to army barracks

    It was the latest act of defiance against the king by protesters who have broken taboos by criticising the monarchy. The Thai constitution says the monarchy must be revered and laws ban insulting the institution. Protesters, many carrying inflatable ducks which have become a protest mascot, stopped at the gates of the 11th Infantry Regiment, part of the King's Guard that played a role in the suppression of anti-establishment protests in 2010. Lines of riot police blocked protesters at the gate.

  • 'I don't see any way around it': Former Navy SEAL McRaven says retaliation for assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientist all but certain

    "The Iranians are going to be in a position where they have to retaliate. I don't see any way around it," retired Adm. William McRaven said.

  • The Electoral College is only getting worse

    The Electoral College is a political abomination. As I have written before, rather than protecting the influence of small states, it grants overwhelming power to a handful of states that randomly happen to have a close partisan balance, which are mostly fairly large. Worse, it allows popular vote losers to win — which has happened twice in the last 20 years. Indeed, theoretically a candidate could lose the popular vote four to one and still win the electoral vote.Moreover, since 2012 the divergence between the Electoral College and the popular vote has been steadily growing. As I'll show below, while Joe Biden won a clear victory in the popular vote, he just barely squeaked through in the Electoral College. This idiotic anachronism must be destroyed.Let's take a look at this over the last two decades. One way to examine this question is to look at the most "efficient" way that losing candidates could have won the Electoral College. In other words, if we add up the state totals for previous elections going back to 2000, how might the losers have won by flipping the least number of votes?Using data from U.S. Elections Atlas, and 2020 data from the The New York Times (including a rough extrapolation assuming Biden wins 80 percent of the mail-in votes that haven't been counted yet in New York state), I calculated how the popular vote losers could have won the Electoral College — or lost, in the case of George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016.In 2000, of course, Bush officially "won" Florida by 537 votes, and therefore the presidency with 271 electoral votes, while Al Gore won the popular vote by about 550,000. (In reality, Gore probably would have won a fair recount in Florida if it hadn't been stopped by a conservative Supreme Court on nakedly partisan grounds, but I'm going to ignore that for the time being since it doesn't matter for this particular argument.) That means a flip of just 269 votes in one state from one candidate to the other would have changed the result. In 2004, Bush won re-election with a margin of about three million votes, and 286 electoral votes. John Kerry famously could have won if he had just flipped Ohio, where the margin was just 118,601 votes. However, it would have been slightly more efficient in vote terms to flip New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and Alaska, with a cumulative margin of 117,411. That means a flip of just 58,706 votes would have given Kerry the presidency.In 2008, Barack Obama steamrolled John McCain with a popular vote margin of over 9.5 million, and 365 electoral votes. But it would have taken relatively few vote changes to overturn even that landslide result. Obama won Florida, Colorado, Iowa, Rhode Island, Maine, New Mexico, Nevada, Vermont, Delaware, New Hampshire, Indiana, and North Carolina by a cumulative margin of just 1.436 million votes — therefore flipping just 718,138 would have given McCain an additional 97 electoral votes and victory. Similarly in 2012, Mitt Romney could have won by taking the nine closest states in terms of total votes, requiring only 384,188 flips. Then in 2016, Trump of course squeaked out an Electoral College victory with tiny margins in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — just 38,868 flips would have given Clinton the win.That finally brings me to 2020. Biden won the popular vote easily, with a margin maybe in the neighborhood of 6.9 million or so (depending on what happens in New York.) But it would have taken just 33,139 flips in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin to deliver a Trump second term.Bringing this all together: If we plot these minimum vote flips to change the Electoral College result as a percentage of the popular vote margin, we can get a sense of how badly it diverges from the principle of one person, one vote:Courtesy: U.S. Elections AtlasWhat this shows is that the Electoral College is routinely on the edge of handing the popular vote loser the presidency even when it doesn't happen — and it seems to be getting worse. In 2008 and 2012, it would have taken a flip of 7.5 percent and 11 percent of the popular vote margin (still not great), but in 2016, flipping just 1.3 percent of the margin would change the result. The 2020 election, meanwhile, is the worst result since 2000 — though Biden did win, a flip of a mere 0.48 percent of the popular vote margin (or something like 0.02 percent of the total vote) would have let Trump win. Moreover, while the 2008 flipping scenario outlined above relies on implausible large percentage swings in small states like Vermont, Biden's victory depended on razor-thin margins in three swing states.All this speaks for itself. But before Republicans get too smug about cooking up justifications for the Electoral College because it happens to help them at the moment, consider that in 2004, flipping just 1.9 percent of the popular vote margin would have delivered the presidency to the Democrat even though Bush got three million more votes. Because the Electoral College's rules are so goofy and arbitrary, it is very easy to imagine demographic trends handing the Dems a near-automatic victory every time — if Texas went solidly blue, for instance. It would be better and fairer for everyone if the presidency simply went to the candidate that got the most votes.More stories from theweek.com Americans are choosing death over deprivation Our parents warned us the internet would break our brains. It broke theirs instead. GOP Sen. Josh Hawley tries to explain how Democrats are both 'Marxists' and 'corporatists'

  • Switzerland halves new infections without national lockdown as pubs and restaurants stay open

    Switzerland is emerging as a model for how the coronavirus can be contained without a national lockdown, after daily new infections halved since the start of November despite pubs, restaurants, gyms and sports remaining open in much of the country. The figures were hailed as a triumph for the “Swiss special way” by Swiss government doctors last week, and will be seen as evidence that regional tiers can work in the UK. Rather than ordering a general lockdown, Switzerland allowed regions to decide their own measures and only the worst-hit imposed tough restrictions. But critics have charged that the success came at too high a price, after the country experienced some of the highest death rates in Europe. Switzerland has been described as the “new Sweden” after it refused to follow the UK and other countries into a second lockdown this month. The Swiss government imposed only minimal restrictions at a national level, including a limit of ten on private gatherings, an 11pm curfew for restaurants and the compulsory use of facemasks in crowded areas.

  • Passenger van rams into bus amid fog in Pakistan, killing 13

    A speeding van carrying passengers crashed into a bus in foggy weather in eastern Pakistan on Monday, killing 13 people and injuring 17 others, a government official and rescuers said. The accident took place in the town of Narang Mandi in eastern Punjab province, said government official Mohammad Asghar Joya. Deadly road accidents are common in Pakistan due to poor road infrastructure and a disregard of traffic laws.

  • U.S. imposes sanctions on Chinese firm accused of undermining democracy in Venezuela

    The United States imposed sanctions on Monday on Chinese firm China National Electronics Import & Export Corporation (CEIEC), accusing it of supporting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's efforts to undermine democracy. The U.S. Treasury Department said in a statement the Chinese company supported the leftist government of Maduro in its "efforts to restrict internet service and conduct digital surveillance and cyber operations against political opponents." "The United States will not hesitate to target anyone helping to suppress the democratic will of the Venezuelan people and others around the world," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in the statement.

  • North Korean leader Kim Jong Un may have already received an unapproved coronavirus vaccine

    Japanese intelligence officials told a US expert that Kim Jong Un received a trial COVID-19 vaccine from China within the last few weeks.