"It doesn't matter who votes; it matters who counts the votes".
I am convinced that the results of the elections have not much to do with the votes cast. Stalin had a point.
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
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
he's registered to vote in Chicago. -- j
I still have to have a photo ID.
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
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...!
Jan
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.
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.
That is why we need a popular vote, and the end of the Electoral College.
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 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.
It would be way way better than what we have now.
It doesn't have to be a nationwide conspiracy - just one that covers the critical states.
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.
Load more comments...