Democrats Vote Against Election Reform

Candidates DO have to win states. That IS the point. There is not one election, there are actually 51 separate elections for President and Vice-President. And why do you think you need a run-off? If no candidate wins a majority of the electoral vote, the winner is determined by the votes of the House, state by state, with all the Representatives of a state voting as one - one vote per state, with a majority of states determining the President, which actually DID happen two times before - 1800 and 1824. All this is clearly specified in the Constitution. And in the 1800 election, it took 36 House votes to 'select' Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr.

Ed

 

Sorta, a candidate can win the popular vote or the state and not win the electoral vote. In other words, the electoral collece does not have to vote for who the people chose. The amount of electoral votes also differ from state to state. My system would give each state one vote.

Precisly my point, I would like the people to elect the president and not any of the elected officials. In the vent of a tie, it goes to the house which is either majority one party or the other. Now let's guess who will win?

The electoral college was put in place to resolve a real problem of the times. There was no real way to get everyone unbiased information regarding each candidate and a national vote was tough to pull off between all 13 states. Technology has resolved all these problems and there is no reason the people can't elect the candidate of their choosing.

Many parts of our government are old and antiquated and need to be overhauled.

 

Pastor Larry is correct, here, even if 'spell-check' doesn't work on his computer.
'Landslide Lyndon' in Texas in 1948; "Hizzoner" Mayor Richard J. Daley and the Cook County, Illinois 'Political Machine' [And whose son William (Bill) Daley, (who knew a good election when he could steal one, maybe, as a good student of his father?) figured prominently in the 2000 Florida controversy.] and whose (Richard J.) mantra was "Vote early, and vote often!"; and William "Boss" Tweed of Tammany Hall in New York City come to mind among Democrats - .



And these had absolutely nothing on the 'Carpetbaggers' and 'Scalawags' of the Reconstruction Era in the South, following the Civil War, who were mainly Republicans' -

http://cache.eb.com/eb/thumb?id=7106
“The Man with the (Carpet) Bags”; cartoon by Thomas Nast, 1872, depicting the Southern …
The Granger Collection, New York
(Sorry, I cannot get the picture to post, as it keeps reverting back to the above link. It is worth clicking on to see, however.)

So this "Big Time" 'tradition' of political corruption has been around for a century and a half, to say the least.

Ed

 

Your "states" plan, and I'm including D.C. here for an odd number, would (or could, anyway) have a scenario where only ~ 50M out of ~ 300M Americans would be needed to actually elect the President, and would effectively eliminate the more populous states, entirely, since for example, the majority of the votes of Woming (Pop. ~ 500K) would or at least could negate the votes of California (Pop. ~ 35M) or 70 times the population, meaning that the vote of a Wyomingian would be 'worth' 70 times that of a Californian. (I realize there is a real problem with 'illegals' in California, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't hit anywhere close to 90% of that state's population!) In fact, effectively 20% of the American voters in the right (no pun intended) states would determine the President, in virtually every election. And the population of the twenty smallest states, and D.C. is less than that of California, alone. So I offer that your proposal would disenfranchise more votes and voters than any shenanigans ever possibly could, even in a worst case scenario.

You apparently object to the fact that one could theoretically lose the popular vote by a couple of million, and be elected President. So you offer an alternative where a candidate could lose the popular vote by 20-30 million, or ten to fifteen times that many and be elected President. (Old Fidel and Kim Jong Il could take lessons, here!) Uh- what am I missing here, save a disliking of the "Electoral College"? Frankly, your suggestion is one of the best arguments I've ever seen FOR keeping it around - never mind that it is part and parcel of the Constitution, to start with. I agree that some parts of our government need overhauling. This ain't one of 'em! And this sure ain't the way to do it, even if it did!

G'nite!

Ed

 

Total ignorance!

 

Notice that Larry's examples are most recently almost 50 years old, while the most egregious republican election-stealing occured within the decade. The republicans didn't replace the democrats. They have become the democrats.

 

Polling places are generally in the neighborhood.

One proposal has the Feds reimbursing the locals for it. That seems fair.

Clearly, you are not poor and counting quarters. A lot of people don't go to the movies or buy McDonald's for that reason.

So, the bed-ridden and nursing home residents should be disenfranchised? Some jobs send their employees out of the state - risk your job or be disenfranchised? There should be a better solution than that.

I think the biggest problem is unauditable electronic voting machines.

It's nice to end in agreement - you're right about this, we do.

 

First, if you read what I said, you will see that I said “They are the mos recent that got publicized. In the same election (and many before) you had massive voter fraud in heavily democractic populations.”

Some places are still hotbeds of Democratic voting problems. I live in one of them. I know.

Second, there is no actual proof of election stealing by the Republicans. That is conjecture, not proof. I am not convinced that the Republicans didn’t do anything wrong. I am sure they did, just as the Democrats did. None of it is acceptable. But I think we should at least be honest with the facts.

 

Daisy,

With respect to polling places, in two previous communities I lived in, they were more than two miles away. Now, it is only about 100 yards, but I have to go about 500 yards to get there because of my back fence. I have to go around the block. So travel is an issue, a "poll tax" of sorts since someone has to pay to get you there, unless you walk.

With respect to $10, I find it hard to believe that there is anyone who cannot scrape together $2.50 over 12 months. That is saving a less than twenty-five cents a month. Do you really think that is impossible for people who desire to vote? I don’t.

But if feds pay for it, I am okay with that … so long as it is paid for, and not added on to the deficit, or paid for by tax increases. And so long as they pay for my identification card too (my driver’s license). I think you are getting into unmanageable bureaucracy, and huge costs. It would be better, IMO, to simply have people save a quarter every month. In fact, if you make it like a passport, with a ten year validity, then they have to save less than a dime a month. And remember, we are not talking about a regular recurring expense, but once every four years, or once every ten years.

With respect to absentee ballots, I would have no issue taking the polling machines to nursing homes, to military bases, or the like, and verifying who is voting. With respect to people out of state, I might be inclined to have a polling place open for a week or so, so they could vote before they leave, at city hall or something. But they have to show up, and they have to have ID to vote. But there are huge problems in absentee voting. Short of eliminating it, I am not sure how you fix it.

But at least we agree something needs to be done.

 

Come on! post some links or history but that's okay if it humble opinion

I noticed,... I wonder what his other brother larry(mitchell)has to offer:tongue3:

No specific links to be had...well...well...well me thinks it is his humble opinion.

and by all means larry and moe are welcome to it!:tongue3:

I think it is just a matter of time and history ...we will know how hacking has taken place and how people were allowed to wait un told hours to vote in Ohio.


Exit polls on Election Day from both the polling firm Zogby International and CNN projected John Kerry winning the state of Ohio. University of Pennsylvania Professor Steven Freeman calculated the odds that the exit polls in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania all being wrong are 250,000,000 to one. Pollster John Zogby, President of Zogby International, is quoted as telling the Inter Press Service of Stockholm that “something is definitely wrong.”

Zogby commented that he was concerned about the discrepancy between the exit polls and the official vote tallies stating “We’re talking about the free world here.”

http://www.bobforohio.com/newsclips/2005/jan/news2005-01-01.php