On the issue of fraud by the vote counters, check out this video. Here's the description: "Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rig elections and flip them 51% to 49%. Exit polling data was proven to be significantly different than the published results. Rep. Feeney was also the lobbyist for Yang Enterprises, the company who delivered the program." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4aKOhbb...

Indeed, he has voted reliably and never missed an election either.

The Dems have as solid a lock on the zombie vote as they do on the black vote with Obama in office.

GOP really missed an opportunity there...zombie voters are forever

yes;; how do we know that Elvis is dead?
he's registered to vote in Chicago. -- j

He was a bad example of a human being, but in this case, he was totally on the money.

I believe you're right ObjectiveAnalyst. All one has to do is check out the credentials of his proposed replacement for Holder. No improvement there esp. on the immigration scene.

That is exactly why Obama and Holder are against pictured voter I. D. They know that it would cost them huge amount of votes, especially in the illegal immigrant population due to his illegal amnesty, but I suspect also the black population because Obama is black. In talking to the ladies in the apartment complex where I live, I get the feeling that they don't care much for Billary. That gives us a shot and makes it even more important that the GOP does it's homework and get a winning team together. My winning team includes Ted Cruz and he is not all that well liked in the liberal camp, so I'm not sure if he would be a good candidate or not. The other is Scott Walker, but I don't think he'd do well with the unions and doesn't have much national exposure. Just my two cents worth.

Like the one in my wallet, telling me where my precinct is located.
I still have to have a photo ID.

What voter I'd cards?

Yes it matters who votes.
A voter needs:
1 proof of citizenship
2 proof that they are resident in the precinct they vote.

Voter ID cards should accomplish the above

Sorry about the loose description. (Awk! I have a description loose...its wandering around here somewhere...)

Jan

That would be good...check to see if your receipt matched the database. Make sure that your vote wasn't pilfered.
Your reference to "(in case he pushed the wrong button accidentally)" would cover a voting mistake, and that should be 'too bad'. Otherwise, in a close election, a third party voter could claim "mistake", and demand to change their vote.
I know a bunch of Perot voters that would have claimed to have meant to vote GOP...!

I was thinking of this as QA, Rocky_Road. If you found that you had voted for Y when you checked online, but your receipt and your memory say you voted for X, the first thing you do is call your uncle, who you are pretty sure also voted for X. Have him check online: If the online record says he voted for Y, then you ask a few more people. If half of the people detect a change from X to Y, then you call the newspaper, Carter Center, X election committee and tell them a story of voting fraud.

Jan

I'm just the messenger on this, but the left's opposition to ID required for voting is always that it 'discriminates against the poor, the homeless, and disproportionately disenfranchises black people which have driver licenses in lower percentages to whites'.

Unfortunately, they have somewhat of a point, we really don't have a system of ID in the US other than the driver license.. We could use passports, but then that requires paying for one and is pretty much a poll tax.

So it's the honor system... and unfortunately a lot of the dead people in Chicago seem to vote every year and very reliably for democrats...

Exactly.
It is obscene that California and N.Y. places my candidate in the 'hole' right out of the gate.
Given the recent polls that give conservatives a sizeable edge over liberals, a popular vote would go a long way to 'fixing' the Republic.

I disagree about reviewing your vote at home.
What do you if you voted wrong? Get to vote again?
Apply this nationwide, and you would never get a final result.

Several states have already passed laws mandating that ALL of their Electoral College voters must vote with the majority winner by population of that state. I don't like that rule at all because it means that in a 51-49 victory, the winner gets ALL the votes. If we're going to do it by popular election without changing the Constitution, I'd rather see the States' Electoral College votes split according to the voting percentages. This would greatly favor Republican candidates because right now, California and New York are already foregone conclusions in the Presidential race. Taking away even 35% of California's 55 votes is a big deal.

That aside, it should be remembered that the office of President of the United States wasn't originally intended to be voted on by the population at large. The position of the President was supposed to be selected by the Governors of the States through their appointees to the Electoral College. That way the President was responsible to the Governors for carrying out the laws enacted by Congress and paralleled the Governors' duties as Executives. To go along with this, the Senate was supposed to be beholden to State Legislatures, being chosen from them, while only the House was chosen by popular vote. This was to make it so that the States retained more power than the Federal Government. Be making each of these races a popular contest, all we do is undermine the very safeguards written into the Constitution.

"It doesn't have to be a nationwide conspiracy - just one that covers the critical states."

That is why we need a popular vote, and the end of the Electoral College.

And...
This is why the Electoral College will favor the Democrats increasingly so, and the politicians will pander to the liberals dominating the real seats of voting power...the major cities.

We need to shut the College down (it has outlived it's intended purpose), and go to a popular vote for the Presidency.

"It doesn't have to be a nationwide conspiracy "
It amazes me we don't have a better system.

I was in Tampa from 98 to 04. While I was there they instituted voting machine that didn't generate a receipt. You just touched the screen, at it said, "your vote has been recorded."

In the 2000 election, in which they abandoned counting and selected Bush president, they used paper ballots. They sent out a thing a few weeks showing which chad should be punched out for which candidate. It told you to check b/c if you didn't have it inserted all the way, you would punch the wrong chads. It wasn't confusing, but I could see it being difficult for elderly people.

But verification as to whether the voter is alive or dead would discriminate against the walking dead!

"Though this proposal is likely not bullet proof, it would go a long way toward reducing fraud, IMHO of course. "
It would be way way better than what we have now.

And one should note that the 2014 Presidential election came down to just a few Counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Those three states were worth 18,20, and 19 (57 total) votes respectively and would have swung the results the other way. And in those three states, it was mainly just a few counties that determined the vote there. (http://www.politico.com/2012-election/re...)

It doesn't have to be a nationwide conspiracy - just one that covers the critical states.

"The vast majority of liberals are all concentrated in the cities."
1. On some issues gov't is trying for a national or statewide solution to things that should be handled locally. If most everything were local, you could simply move to the area that does things your way.
2. Politicians have to take advantage of this state of affairs to win. They have to say things that sound comforting to people in urban areas and bizarre to rural people, and vice versa.

The result of this is lots of talking and no limiting the size and intrusiveness of gov't.

Don't forget Washington state at the same time. One can also look at Harry Reid's re-election in Nevada. Or the Presidential elections of 2014. There are plenty of suspicious outcomes.

Yep. If you look at a Red/Blue map, you'll see that by land mass, no Democrat should ever win office. The vast majority of liberals are all concentrated in the cities. During the Bush/Gore election, Bush won like over 90% of the _counties_ in America, but the ones he lost held like 40% of the population, which was why the vote was so close.