The Election is Rigged!!

[Yamato 13,197]

3 hours ago, and then said:

The FOUNDING FATHERS thought a bit differently about that approach to governing.  As soon as an amendment to the US Constitution is duly passed, we can begin to have rule by the mob.  Until that time whiners need to find something else to occupy their time.

There's too many people in this country and too much technology to count the votes to need an electoral college like we did back in the horse and buggy days.

People should care enough to reform the system for the next election.  Applying reform retroactively doesn't have to be the course of action.

The electoral system itself is rigged in that the loser in any state loses the delegates.  If they got 40% of the vote they don't get 40% of the delegates.   So the delegate count isn't an accurate representation of the popular vote.  It made sense 200 years ago, it makes no sense today.   In 2000 and now again in 2016, two elections is enough times for this to happen.  

We have the technology.  We can make it better, faster, stronger.   All votes should count, and all votes should count the same. 

[and then 41,219]

3 hours ago, Yamato said:

There's too many people in this country and too much technology to count the votes to need an electoral college like we did back in the horse and buggy days.

People should care enough to reform the system for the next election.  Applying reform retroactively doesn't have to be the course of action.

The electoral system itself is rigged in that the loser in any state loses the delegates.  If they got 40% of the vote they don't get 40% of the delegates.   So the delegate count isn't an accurate representation of the popular vote.  It made sense 200 years ago, it makes no sense today.   In 2000 and now again in 2016, two elections is enough times for this to happen.  

We have the technology.  We can make it better, faster, stronger.   All votes should count, and all votes should count the same. 

 

There is a process in the Constitution to achieve that change.  The arguments have been clearly stated pro and con.  If enough of the people want the amendment then it will happen.

[Yamato 13,197]

54 minutes ago, and then said:

There is a process in the Constitution to achieve that change.  The arguments have been clearly stated pro and con.  If enough of the people want the amendment then it will happen.

Congress can't begin that process right away because the populations still like the electoral college?   I don't think so.

[preacherman76 13,573]

I think the electoral college is as necessary today as ever. The women only won 50 counties. There is no way in hell she should be president. 

Politicians would only campaign in like 3 states. And wouldnt give a crap about the problems anywhere else. I see no reason to change the presidential election. 

[Harte 17,141]

11 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Dems push for recount? I thought it was Stein. No doubt just a proxy.

And despite the prediction of widespread vote fraud - not a bit of evidence. But like a said. People have a hard time saying "I was wrong".The

The organization "True the Vote" seems to disagree

Harte.

[Harte 17,141]

7 hours ago, Yamato said:

The electoral system itself is rigged in that the loser in any state loses the delegates.  If they got 40% of the vote they don't get 40% of the delegates. 

That's not true. In Nebraska and Maine electoral votes are distributed proportionally to the candidates.

This is a state issue. Each state can do what it wants. It's much easier to enact law at the state level.

You are saying you know better how to run other people's lives than they themselves do. If not, then why haven't other states made this change? Because they haven't read your post on this?

Harte

[Yamato 13,197]

10 hours ago, Harte said:

That's not true. In Nebraska and Maine electoral votes are distributed proportionally to the candidates.

This is a state issue. Each state can do what it wants. It's much easier to enact law at the state level.

You are saying you know better how to run other people's lives than they themselves do. If not, then why haven't other states made this change? Because they haven't read your post on this?

Harte

Oh BS.  I'm saying that everyone's vote should count.   And you're making excuses for it not to.

The electoral college and Nebraska, dude.   Whatever you can find to make excuses with, there you go! 

I'm not the one who comes and slaps you with the Roolz every time they're stupid and don't work right.  That's your gig.

Quote

If not, then why haven't other states made this change? Because they haven't read your post on this?

Because human beings are creatures of habit?  Because they O-bey the Roolz.

Here's Nebraska, dude.   Tell me again what's not true.   60% of the vote, 100% of the delegates.   You should do homework before trying to correct me next time.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/nebraska

 

[Harte 17,141]

9 minutes ago, Yamato said:

Oh BS.  I'm saying that everyone's vote should count.   And you're making excuses for it not to.

The electoral college and Nebraska, dude.   Whatever you can find to make excuses with, there you go! 

I'm not the one who comes and slaps you with the Roolz every time they're stupid and don't work right.  That's your gig.

Because human beings are creatures of habit?  Because they O-bey the Roolz.

Here's Nebraska, dude.   Tell me again what's not true.   60% of the vote, 100% of the delegates.   You should do homework before trying to correct me next time.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/nebraska

You are a fool if you think I don't do my homework:

Quote

Maine and Nebraska have taken a slightly different approach in recent years. These states allocate two Electoral Votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska) in their state. This creates multiple popular vote contests in these states, which could lead to a split Electoral Vote. 

Source

Also, it was YOU that said that in every state, the loser loses all the delegates. I simply pointed out that you were mistaken.

If you think not, then how did Obama get an electoral vote out of Nebraska (which went Republican) in 2008?

Seems you don't mind accusing others of shooting off their mouth without first checking, but when you do it, God Almighty, somebody else has to be wrong!

Harte

Edited November 29, 2016 by Harte

[Yamato 13,197]

Just now, Harte said:

You are a fool if you think I don't do my homework:

Source

Also, it was YOU that said that in every state,m the loser loses all the delegates. I simply pointed out that you were mistaken.

If you think not, then how did Obama get an electoral vote out of Nebraska (which went Republican) in 2008?

Seems you don't mind accusing others of shooting off their mouth without first checking, but when you do it, God Almighty, somebody else has to be wrong!

Harte

Well sorry, but you are wrong.  I just showed you the election results for Nebraska. 

Oh almost forgot Maine.  Yeah, we can "distribute proportionally to the candidates" with just 4 votes to divvy up.   Math!  It's not for everyone.

[Harte 17,141]

Harvard study on voting by illegal aliens just came out:

Quote

Abstract

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration. This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

Source

Harte

[Harte 17,141]

1 minute ago, Yamato said:

Well sorry, but you are wrong.  I just showed you the election results for Nebraska. 

Oh almost forgot Maine.  Yeah, we can "distribute proportionally to the candidates" with just 4 votes to divvy up.   Math!  It's not for everyone.

I think everyone reading this will note that what you claimed is certainly not true. Which is what I originally said.

Harte

[ShadowSot 14,861]

2 minutes ago, Harte said:

Harvard study on voting by illegal aliens just came out:

Source

Harte

Rebuttal: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379415001420

[Yamato 13,197]

1 minute ago, Harte said:

I think everyone reading this will note that what you claimed is certainly not true. Which is what I originally said.

Harte

What you originally replied to me with was wrong.   Trump got 60% of the vote and 100% of the delegates in Nebraska.   In my example, I said you can get 40% of the vote, you don't get 40% of the delegates.  That's exactly what I said and that's exactly what happened in Nebraska.   Nebraska is the perfect example of what I said before you tried to disagree using Nebraska of all things as an example.

[Harte 17,141]

16 minutes ago, Yamato said:

What you originally replied to me with was wrong.   Trump got 60% of the vote and 100% of the delegates in Nebraska.   In my example, I said you can get 40% of the vote, you don't get 40% of the delegates.  That's exactly what I said and that's exactly what happened in Nebraska.   Nebraska is the perfect example of what I said before you tried to disagree using Nebraska of all things as an example.

I agree you said  many things in that post. Here';s one of them:

18 hours ago, Yamato said:

The electoral system itself is rigged in that the loser in any state loses the delegates.

Again, not true. Obama didn't.

Harte

[Yamato 13,197]

Just now, Harte said:

I agree you said  many things in that post. Here';s one of them:

Again, not true. Obama didn't.

Harte

"Again", not true?   What else was there?

"Obama didn't" what?

[Harte 17,141]

Obama lost Nebraska in 2008. Obama didn't lose all of Nebraska's electoral votes.

Harte

[Yamato 13,197]

4 minutes ago, Harte said:

Obama lost Nebraska in 2008. Obama didn't lose all of Nebraska's electoral votes.

Harte

Well then the Roolz are stupid and the system is rigged~!

Nebraska's five electorals...ridiculous!   How they ever manage them at all is irrelevant.  It's not how well you manage your five votes dude.

The Electoral College...Nebraska and Maine would be glad to get rid of it.  Ratifying such an amendment is a no-brainer. 

The flow of power is supposed to be the People -> the Congress -> the President -> the States.    

It'd pass easily but why doesn't it?   People are too decadent, they don't care.  Congress is too derelict, and it really doesn't care!   The Presidents are Kings.  Who knows what VIP paperwork they'll sign?   The states can't do anything right (like ID voters) without nanny-boo-boo one-size-fits-all govt from Washington DC telling them what to do.

So yeah dude, the system is rigged.

[Harte 17,141]

The point is, any state can alter the way they distribute their electoral votes. There's no need to rail against the Feds on this. The Electoral College is enshrined in the Constitution in two different places. Far easier to get your state to change to the type of Electoral vote distribution you want than it is to just get rid of the Electoral College.

Besides, without the electors, campaigning would take place in about 20 counties - mostly on the East and West coasts. There would be FAR more opportunity for corruption under that sort of system.

Harte

[CrimsonKing 21,798]

On 11/2/2016 at 0:21 PM, Claire. said:

Believe whatever Trump conspiracy theories you want to, but the fact of the matter remains that rigging an election is next to impossible.

According to Republican election lawyer Chris Ashby, to rig an election, you would need:

"(1) [T]echnological capabilities that exist only in Mission Impossible movies, plus (2) the cooperation of the Republicans and Democrats who are serving as the polling place’s election officials, plus (3) the blind eyes of the partisan pollwatchers who are standing over their shoulders, plus (4) the cooperation of another set of Republicans and Democrats — the officials at the post-elections canvass, plus (5) the blind eyes of the canvass watchers, too. Then you’d still have to jedi-mind trick lawyers, political operatives and state election administrators, all of whom scrub precinct-level returns for aberrant election results, and scrutinize any polling place result that is not in line with what they would have expected, based on current political dynamics and historical election results."

Source: ExtraNewsfeed

So...Are you telling me Dems now believe in Jedi mind tricks?  

[Farmer77 28,105]

6 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

So...Are you telling me Dems now believe in Jedi mind tricks?  

Clearly they do  .....hillary is not the criminal you are looking for 

[Thorvir 13,942]

Ah, nevermind.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Thorvir Hrothgaard