Post-election games add to already-discouraging 2016 campaign

Of this I am certain: After the dust settles (if it does) on the 2016 presidential election, many Americans - millions - will be turned off by our electoral process, and perhaps even by the idea of voting.

As much as I disliked both candidates (actually, all three now - more on that later), I thought the "post-election" process went as well as could be expected.

Hillary Clinton, understandably emotionally crushed, did not speak publicly until the next day but she was at least gracious enough to acknowledge that Donald Trump won. I don't recall if she actually "congratulated" him, but there was no fire and brimstone threat to keep fighting until she is dragged away kicking and screaming.

But that was then - three weeks ago. This is now - six weeks before a new president of the United States is to be inaugurated.

And on second thought, Hillary has decided NOT to give up, at least not just yet.

If the election of 2016 had not already claimed the title of "Most Bizarre Presidential Election Ever," this - and even other - post-election sideshows seem to be adding fuel to that competition.

Not the least of which is the fact that under our system of presidential elections, votes actually are cast by the long-established "Electoral College." Few complaints, if any, have been heard (or remembered) about the electoral college's involvement in selecting our president. At least, before this year. (Perhaps there have been complaints, but probably not within the memory of current readers.)

The Electoral College was established in 1787 by the men who drafted the U.S. Constitution. Membership in the Electoral College is based on the number of members each state has in the U.S. House of Representatives, plus two votes per state for its United States senators. There are 538 members of the Electoral College right now. Illinois has 20 electoral votes.

Individual states have until December 13 to resolve any controversies over the appointment of electors and, if necessary, state courts may intervene. Votes cast in the individual states must be determined by Dec. 13. The actual vote by the Electoral College does not occur until Dec. 19. Votes of the states must have been certified by then.

Congress will meet in joint session to count the electoral votes on Jan. 6.

So Trump has supposedly won the election based on his assumed higher number of electoral votes. Clinton, however, is acknowledged to have more actual votes.

But there are numerous opportunities for the system to be thwarted, and certainly if two or three candidates are claiming fraud and able to substantiate those claims through recounts or other actions, the U.S. could be in a rather unique quandary.

Enter Jill Stein, the two-time Green Party candidate, who never had, and never will have, a chance to be elected president of the United States. But as her campaign literature and background point out, this native of Chicago and Highland Park (and a practicing physician) and her left-of-center philosophy leave no doubt she would prefer Hillary Clinton if she herself was not elected.

After reading about Stein - more in the past few days than ever before - it makes one wonder how a Clinton-Stein ticket would have done. Having just one woman on the national ticket has failed in recent years: Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 with Walter Mondale; and Sarah Palin in 2008 with John McCain.

A Clinton-Stein ticket may have been "the ticket." It seems neither of them is willing to end the 2016 campaign.

Ed Murnane, edmurnane@gmail.com, of Arlington Heights, is a former staff member for presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and former regional administrator for the Small Business Administration. In 2015, he retired as president of the Illinois Civil Justice League.