Woo Hoo! Election Reform is a comin!

There seems to be no doubt that you wish to remove the power to conduct their elections from the states.

I'm not sure, but doesn't the Constitution grant that right to the states?

 

Ya sure, you betcha. As long as both parties are owned by the same people all the election does is choose the Tax Collector In Chief.

 

This is the only thing you said I disagree with UTube. I want everyone to get their legal right to vote and I know of no republicans who are in favor of suppressing anyone's vote. I am in favor of every one of the ideas you have presented. We need to make it very easy to vote.

The only thing we cannot do is allow fraud to take place. Early voting is a great idea, as long as anyone attempting to vote twice gets caught and sent to jail. Multiple registrations that might take place under some of your scenarios is not a big deal to me. If you ACCIDENTALLY get registered at two addresses who cares, there should be some kind of reference that catches that and as long as it was by accident and you don't try to vote twice I don't think that should be a crime.

Now if you registered two places on purpose, or took money to register or vote, or paid someone to vote, you need to go to jail and it needs to be a felony that results in the permanent loss of your vote in the future.

 

Be careful of the assumptions you make about the republican base here Utube, John McCain never sought or won the support of the republican base. He ran as a left leaning moderate and in my book was a full blown liberal. The real republican base is much more conservative than McCain and a lot of them sat this election out.

 

Because of the motor voter law requiring everyone getting a drivers license to be given a voter registration cardl, and because OR and maybe others allowed for several years the illegal aliens to get drivers licenses there were probably many illegals voting in the last and some previous elections.

Yep we really need to make voting easier :thumbs:

Not against making it easier but easier might well mean watering down the citizens power of the ballot.

 

Now there is a valid concern. I once lived in Cynthia McKinney's district that was struck down by the supreme court for being rigged.

District lines should have to follow county lines or other established boundries. Both sides have rigged districts for way to long.

 

Actually it is 19th century US Code that established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. The constitution left it up to the states.

 

Ouch!!

That must have been painful.

 

Republicans Aren't Lazy. They are out Working so YOUR newly elected Pres. Can take away the money and give it to the LAZY Dem-A-CRAPS. Who live off the Government. And in the Area where I live On my Schools Bus Route I see More and More Hispanics who are getting the idea from the Blacks who have been living this lifestyle for many years. That is why in the County I live ONE of the reasons John McCain won 75% to Obams 25%. Be cause were HARD WORKING People and were tired of others Living off us. That's why We have Boundaries and YOU DON'T. And you may be Happy Now but Obam's Not there yet. So don't hold your breath cause Now you get to how far his FALL will be.

 

But always entertaining:laugh:

 

Actually, it doesn't do so directly. It is in those powers not specifically delegated to the federal govenment section.

There are some things that need to be standardized, because electing a President should not be subject to different state rules. For example, the method used by states to determine their electoral vote is not consistent. In Maine and Nebraska, there are different rules. The standards applied to counting are also different, particularly related to the kinds of ballots used, and the way to rectify or correct errors.

The federal government should conduct federal elections, leaving the states to conduct state and local elections. That might open the door to changing the electoral college, or eliminating it, but it would prevent arbirtary actions by secretaries of states with partisan interests such as we have seen in the previous two elections.

 

You've been listening to way, way too much talk radio.

 

I've Listen to NONE Is that to much?
Did you not READ What I Said? While I'm on my Bus Route For YEARS I ride in the areas where they live. Everyone Walks around Stands in the streets they don't get out of your way. Drug deals I see EVERY DAY. People on Porches instead of out working. LAZY

 

Watch it Given Grace you are going to be labled a racist.

 

It ain't broke, so please don't try to 'fix' it!

Um, OK, I guess for some of this, but the US Constitution doesn't even mention any such thing as a "federal election", that I've seen. Nor, FTR, does the Constitution even "give" anyone any "right to vote" for a President, although it does guarantee the citizens such a right to vote for their two Senators and one Representative.

That "right to vote" for the President, has been done by the legislatures of the several states, in their own wisdom, for the purpose of how the electors are appointed, which happens to be entirely consistent with the Constitution.

Incidentally, the states of Maine and Nebraska are also entirely consistent with the US Constitution in their approach to the appointment of their electors, just as are the other 48 states. California is, at least, considering a similar plan. Some other states are also considering various different plans, as well. Why should their wisdom be infringed upon, by those of say, my own state? Personally, I really don't want the citizens of the states of WI, TX, WA, NC, OR, AL, GA, TN, or SC to be able impose their laws on me. Have you also happened to notice that Nebraska is the only state with a "unicameral" or "one-house" legislature, as well? All of the above is entirely Constitutional.

What you are suggesting, by contrast, is an entirely "UN-constitutional" proposal.

BTW, your implied 'dig' at the several Secretaries of State (not to mention the Legislatures of those states, for enacting whatever legislation they saw fit to do, in their collective wisdom), is also noted.

Does the same 'standard' also apply to judges (both State and Federal), in your view?

Ed