I consider the November 5 presidential election a test. If Kamala Harris doesn't win the election, our country's voters will receive a failing grade. Regardless of anyone's political beliefs, her opponent, would-be tyrant Donald J. Trump, is a narcissistic idiot, a foul-mouthed, thin-skinned bully not interested in anyone or anything except himself, his power and his wealth. And for four shameful years he proved he was unfit to be president.

Yet on the day this was written (October 14), Trump was given a 50-50 chance of winning the election despite conducting one of the most negative campaigns in history. He claimed there were lots of problems in the country, but did not offer any solutions, merely claiming he'd come up with them. All we have to do is trust him.

He's spent most of his time insulting his opponent, making up outrageous lies about her, and presenting a fantasy about his years in the White House when he established himself as one of the worst presidents we've ever had. Perhaps only James Buchanan, who preceded Abraham Lincoln, did a worse job than Trump. But it's doubtful Buchanan or any other presidential candidate told half as many lies as does Trump.

IF YOU DON'T have a vested interest in a Trump victory, there's no reason to vote for a convicted felon and sex offender who paid hush money to a porn star. And that's in addition to the way he mishandled the pandemic in 2020 and his many schemes before and after. Even while running for president this year he hawked Donald Trump watches, some of which he wanted $100,000. And then there was the Donald Trump bible. The man claims he wants to help American business, yet these bibles were printed in China. The list of Trump's questionable money-making scams goes on and on.

Of course, prominent Republicans, including Trump's running mate, J. D. Vance, have a vested interest his presidency, but it was disheartening to see how these people twisted themselves in knots to support Trump's lies, including the biggest one of them all  — that Trump did not lose the 2020 election.

IF TRUMP does win, it most certainly will be the result of the electoral vote, which makes it possible for the tail to wag the dog. It may have seemed like a good idea two-hundred years ago, but in 2016, it put Trump in the White House, though he lost the popular election to Hillary Clinton by nearly three million votes. Mrs. Clinton, favored to win, was shocked by the results, but graciously conceded, something Trump obviously did not do four years later, despite losing to Joe Biden by more than seven million votes. Mrs. Clinton's defeat came down to three states — Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, where she was expected to fare much better.

The 2020 results clearly showed a weakness in the electoral vote system. Had fewer than 80,000 voters in Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin and Nevada voted for the Republican rather than the Democrat, Trump would have been re-elected despite losing the popular vote by slightly more than 6.9 million votes.

I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college, but those 6.9 million voters have a right to be heard. So what if most of them live in California and New York? (The expected answer to that question is we can't allow two states to override the will of voters in the other 48. However, overall, Biden won 25 states and the District of Columbia, while Trump also won 25 states.)

But the sometimes unfortunate truth is no one can be elected president of the United States without receiving more than 50 percent of the electoral votes. There have been five elections in which the candidate who won the popular vote nonetheless failed to receive enough electoral votes.

IT HAPPENED first in 1824 when there were four men running for president. When votes were counted, Andrew Jackson was the clear winner, crushing his three opponents, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and William H. Crawford. But those three candidates combined captured 162 electoral votes. Jackson received only 99 electoral votes, 32 less than required to win the election. Result: Adams became president, thanks to the House of Representatives, though only 31 percent of the voters had selected him. (Four years later, with only two candidates running, Adams was defeated by Jackson, who received 56 percent of the popular vote and more than twice as many electoral votes as Adams.)

In 1876, Democratic Samuel J. Tilden received 4,300,590 votes, which was 264,294 more than his Republican opponent, Rutherford B. Hayes. But 20 electoral votes from five states were in dispute, and the House of Representatives settled the matter by voting along party lines, giving all 20 votes to Hayes, who thus became president by a margin of one electoral vote, 185-184.

In 1888, Grover Cleveland ran for re-election and received 100,456 more votes than Republican Benjamin Harrison, but it was Harrison who won the election, 233-168 in the electoral vote. (Four years later Cleveland won a second term as president, defeating Harrison in both the popular and electoral vote.)

THE NEXT TIME the electoral college reared its ugly head was 2000 when Al Gore received 537.179 votes more than George W. Bush, but lost in the electoral vote, 271-266. The disputed vote was in Florida, where Bush received 537 more votes. Florida's 25 electoral votes decided the winner.

A Trump victory would raise troublesome questions about the gullibility and the priorities of the voters and indicate the problems that divide our country are irreconcilable. I can't believe there are that many members of the Trump cult.

My belief — okay, it's my fantasy — is the polls are very wrong this time. Even many Republicans believe the is no choice. They say they are voting for Harris, even though they may not agree with her on anything but the need to preserve our union.

With that in mind, I think Harris will win easily, even in the electoral college, and receive 60 percent of the vote. At least, she should.