Election 2020 Voting System Weaknesses & Other Voting System Issues

[badger2]

Yes, it does mesh with our earlier USMB observation that the Clinton crime family is more CIA than FBI. In those threads, we pointed to the Michigan connection to British MI6, linking the Steele dossier.

 

[badger2]

But the OmegManRadio soundcloud has no controlled way to enter at the 20-minute timepoint. What crap.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Florida had a huge number of mail in ballots, but they began processing them before Election Day. The states that didn't had laws preventing that, and state legislatures refusing to change them. If ballots could have been processed before then on Election Day they would just need to be scanned in. That would have made it a much speedier process imo.

Another poster did a thread about going electronic and I am know Seattle tested something and maybe this is the future and would make the count faster...

 

[Coyote]

Florida had a huge number of mail in ballots, but they began processing them before Election Day. The states that didn't had laws preventing that, and state legislatures refusing to change them. If ballots could have been processed before then on Election Day they would just need to be scanned in. That would have made it a much speedier process imo.

And they did that why..........because they knew it would cause CHAOS......Mail in votes ENSURED THEY CAUSED CHAOS...............

In Chaos they can cheat like hell...........The Mail in Virus is a disgrace to this country.

No...they did that because that is how their election laws are. If mail in votes ensure chaos...can you let Utah know?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'd like to expand the Electoral College system to provide proportional representation by party.

Then use the reps from each party per district to operate a
Constitutional Council to review complaints of abuse of govt and overreaches,
violations of Constitutional due process, taxation without representation, or other ethics issues
or general consumer protections against govt waste, fraud, abuse, misrepresentation, discrimination by political creed.

If we create a voluntary nonbinding council that serves in an advisory capacity between people and govt,
then we could better prepare when there is a situation requiring a Constitutional Convention of States.

We could also address complaints of party or media abuses and misrepresentation or manipulation
affecting public policy and elections.

Since this would belong to the people, and remain on a grassroots level for direct access,
then it could not be funded or controlled by govt which would introduce bias or conflicting interests.

I suggest that the various parties contribute delegates to a central Constitutional Council,
and use that to address, mediate and resolve grievances and objections, as well
as introduce proposed reforms, and possible facilitate the shift of nonconstitutional
social programs back to Parties and States to manage democratically among their own members
instead of running contested social programs through federal govt (including
health care, education, and welfare benefits that could be better managed democratically by Party
to accommodate diverse beliefs by grouping people sharing political beliefs, instead of opposing groups imposing on each other).

 

[flacaltenn]

Posting the link to this Bloomberg article written in 2019. It's a great summary of types of voting systems and companies..

But the MAIN thing I learned is that PHILLY does NOT RUN DOMINION machines.. They run ES&S machines..

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[Dr Grump]

Then the process of equal state vote in the SENATE is a fraud.. So it the process of equal state vote in amending the CONSTITUTION is a fraud.. You've replaced our form of Republic and re-designed the Constitution..

I think you need an actual Revolution to do that. Or a Constitutional Convention that would probably end in physical brawling..

Not so much a fraud, but inequal and doesn't work anymore.

 

[flacaltenn]

Florida had a huge number of mail in ballots, but they began processing them before Election Day. The states that didn't had laws preventing that, and state legislatures refusing to change them. If ballots could have been processed before then on Election Day they would just need to be scanned in. That would have made it a much speedier process imo.

And they did that why..........because they knew it would cause CHAOS......Mail in votes ENSURED THEY CAUSED CHAOS...............

In Chaos they can cheat like hell...........The Mail in Virus is a disgrace to this country.

No...they did that because that is how their election laws are. If mail in votes ensure chaos...can you let Utah know?

Utah Atty Gen just took "leave of absence" to go assist the Trump team in voting machine issues.. APPARENTLY the issue is NOT mail-ins. It's the scanning and tabulating machines that COULD be compromised.. He's ordered further investigation, but they are close to recounting themselves..

 

[flacaltenn]

Then the process of equal state vote in the SENATE is a fraud.. So it the process of equal state vote in amending the CONSTITUTION is a fraud.. You've replaced our form of Republic and re-designed the Constitution..

I think you need an actual Revolution to do that. Or a Constitutional Convention that would probably end in physical brawling..

Not so much a fraud, but inequal and doesn't work anymore.

Sorry man.. But a REPUBLIC is founded on LIMITED RIGHTS to the Feds with the STATES retaining most of their sovereignty.. And STATES are what RATIFY constitutional changes. Not pop vote margins. The E.C is weighted by population, to boost the states at the LOW end and suppress the states at the HIGH end of the population..

LEFTISTS SHOULD LOVE the E.C. because it's a form of redistribution of power so that the "tiny guy" doesn't become a slave to the rich master -- just because he has more people behind him...

 

[Dr Grump]

Sorry man.. But a REPUBLIC is founded on LIMITED RIGHTS to the Feds with the STATES retaining most of their sovereignty.. And STATES are what RATIFY constitutional changes. Not pop vote margins. The E.C is weighted by population, to boost the states at the LOW end and suppress the states at the HIGH end of the population..

LEFTISTS SHOULD LOVE the E.C. because it's a form of redistribution of power so that the "tiny guy" doesn't become a slave to the rich master -- just because he has more people behind him...

And you've outlined its fundamental flaw. Why should states with lower populations have a say that alienates those at the higher end. At a state level, yeah, sure do what you want. But why should two Senators from Alaska with 600,000 people have the same voting rights as the two Senators from California with their 40 million people at a federal level. It is patently unfair and disenfranchising.

Ditto the number of EC votes a state gets. An EC vote in Alaska is worth more than one in NY or Texas. Is that fair? I don't think so. I've always thought a fairer way to spread it around is like how a couple of the states do it - divide the EC by votes at state level. For example, going by the popular vote in Texas, Trump should have gotten about 15 or 16 of the EC votes, Biden 12 or 13. Trump would have gotten about 20 of the 55 in California. At the end of the day you have a 50-state system where Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan and maybe one or two other states matter. About 42+ states don't matter every four years. If you are a Dem in Texas or a Repub in NY or California, you may as well not vote. Is that good for the US? I don't think so.

 

[flacaltenn]

And you've outlined its fundamental flaw. Why should states with lower populations have a say that alienates those at the higher end. At a state level, yeah, sure do what you want. But why should two Senators from Alaska with 600,000 people have the same voting rights as the two Senators from California with their 40 million people at a federal level. It is patently unfair and disenfranchising.

Well AH HAH !!! Your problem (as I figured) isn't JUST with the E.C. -- It's with the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of our REPUBLIC.. If you don't KNOW the reasons why we're a REPUBLIC -- read the Handbook and Owners Manual.. Like the "federalist" and "anti-federalist" papers.

The SENATE is FAR more equally state weighted than the E.C., You should FIX THAT first...

So -- like I said in the 1st post on this -- You NEED A FUCKING REVOLUTION to change these things. Because a Constitutional Convention --- they'd all kill each on the floor trying to come up with a 100% brand new Constitution..

So -- start a revolution Che.. Or read some of the founding documents. These guys weren't stupid about freedom and democracy...

 

[flacaltenn]

Not only that Gumpmeister. But how ya gonna VOTE to CHANGE the senate or the E.C?? By popular vote?? We'd immediately fracture into 50 European like countries??

 

[Dr Grump]

And you've outlined its fundamental flaw. Why should states with lower populations have a say that alienates those at the higher end. At a state level, yeah, sure do what you want. But why should two Senators from Alaska with 600,000 people have the same voting rights as the two Senators from California with their 40 million people at a federal level. It is patently unfair and disenfranchising.

Well AH HAH !!! Your problem (as I figured) isn't JUST with the E.C. -- It's with the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of our REPUBLIC.. If you don't KNOW the reasons why we're a REPUBLIC -- read the Handbook and Owners Manual.. Like the "federalist" and "anti-federalist" papers.

The SENATE is FAR more equally state weighted than the E.C., You should FIX THAT first...

So -- like I said in the 1st post on this -- You NEED A FUCKING REVOLUTION to change these things. Because a Constitutional Convention --- they'd all kill each on the floor trying to come up with a 100% brand new Constitution..

So -- start a revolution Che.. Or read some of the founding documents. These guys weren't stupid about freedom and democracy...

Oh, I know why you're a republic. Mob rule 51 per cent take away the rights of the other 49 as Jefferson said. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner said Franklin. Both describing democracy.

Let's go back to Jefferson and his mob rule. "51 per cent take away the rights of 49 per cent of others.' This was from a slave owner. From a man who lived in a time where women couldn't vote. Where only land-owning men could vote. Taking away the rights of others. Blacks? Gays? How were their rights back then. How were their rights up until recently? Your FF were very flawed individuals, as is your constitution. Sure, on paper, looks great. However it doesn't have one amendment. It has 27, so it is far from perfect.

And you are right, they would tear each other apart. What does that tell you about your 'perfect' system.

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's go back to Jefferson and his mob rule. "51 per cent take away the rights of 49 per cent of others.' This was from a slave owner. From a man who lived in a time where women couldn't vote. Where only land-owning men could vote. Taking away the rights of others. Blacks? Gays? How were their rights back then. How were their rights up until recently? Your FF were very flawed individuals, as is your constitution. Sure, on paper, looks great. However it doesn't have one amendment. It has 27, so it is far from perfect.

In the end -- you HAVE to have a Federation of states. Who willingly subjugate themselves to a Constitution. And your concern about slaves and minorities IS EXACTLY the concern that STATES have in being overtaken by the "wolves'. Go read about bi-cameral legislatures and why they are prevalent in STABLE countries and why UNI-cameral legislatures are a feature of communist/socialist countries and dictators..

Your evil progressive plan to go grab Puerto Rico to enhance the "uniparty" Democrat model wouldn't work with all the "federation" language removed from the Constitution.. Why would Puerto Rico want to join into a system where THEIR "state" is a peon pauper in terms of power-sharing? Why would the smaller states want to remain in a system where their "sovereignty" is just a token joke?

That's the problem the founders faced. And why they DESIGNED a federated Republic..

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes, it does mesh with our earlier USMB observation that the Clinton crime family is more CIA than FBI. In those threads, we pointed to the Michigan connection to British MI6, linking the Steele dossier.

WTF is all that? A Michigan connection to MI6? The Steele Dossier? What the hell man? Did you just go over a cliff or something?

Now, we DO HAVE reciprocal spying arrangements with the Brits and other trusted countries. Where we let them SPY HERE on Americans. And our Intel groups spy THERE on Brits. That's no secret. That's just life. But it's got NOTHING to do with elections or our sovereignty.

UKUSA Agreement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[flacaltenn]

I've always thought a fairer way to spread it around is like how a couple of the states do it - divide the EC by votes at state level. For example, going by the popular vote in Texas, Trump should have gotten about 15 or 16 of the EC votes, Biden 12 or 13. Trump would have gotten about 20 of the 55 in California.

So you want to divide up the SENATE to look just like the HOUSE also?? That's what you're doing here. There are at least four features in the Constitution that are THERE so that the Founders could convince states to join.. You're gonna need that Revolution to start dismantling all of that...

Because to the average American -- their State laws and services are MUCH more responsive and important than ANYTHING the Federal govt actually provides to daily life...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And you've outlined its fundamental flaw. Why should states with lower populations have a say that alienates those at the higher end. At a state level, yeah, sure do what you want. But why should two Senators from Alaska with 600,000 people have the same voting rights as the two Senators from California with their 40 million people at a federal level. It is patently unfair and disenfranchising.

Well AH HAH !!! Your problem (as I figured) isn't JUST with the E.C. -- It's with the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of our REPUBLIC.. If you don't KNOW the reasons why we're a REPUBLIC -- read the Handbook and Owners Manual.. Like the "federalist" and "anti-federalist" papers.

The SENATE is FAR more equally state weighted than the E.C., You should FIX THAT first...

So -- like I said in the 1st post on this -- You NEED A FUCKING REVOLUTION to change these things. Because a Constitutional Convention --- they'd all kill each on the floor trying to come up with a 100% brand new Constitution..

So -- start a revolution Che.. Or read some of the founding documents. These guys weren't stupid about freedom and democracy...

Oh, I know why you're a republic. Mob rule 51 per cent take away the rights of the other 49 as Jefferson said. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner said Franklin. Both describing democracy.

Let's go back to Jefferson and his mob rule. "51 per cent take away the rights of 49 per cent of others.' This was from a slave owner. From a man who lived in a time where women couldn't vote. Where only land-owning men could vote. Taking away the rights of others. Blacks? Gays? How were their rights back then. How were their rights up until recently? Your FF were very flawed individuals, as is your constitution. Sure, on paper, looks great. However it doesn't have one amendment. It has 27, so it is far from perfect.

And you are right, they would tear each other apart. What does that tell you about your 'perfect' system.

You obviously don't understand the basis for the constitution or the way it was set up.

States are the prevailing entity.

Not our fucking federal government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Let's go back to Jefferson and his mob rule. "51 per cent take away the rights of 49 per cent of others.' This was from a slave owner. From a man who lived in a time where women couldn't vote. Where only land-owning men could vote. Taking away the rights of others. Blacks? Gays? How were their rights back then. How were their rights up until recently? Your FF were very flawed individuals, as is your constitution. Sure, on paper, looks great. However it doesn't have one amendment. It has 27, so it is far from perfect.

In the end -- you HAVE to have a Federation of states. Who willingly subjugate themselves to a Constitution. And your concern about slaves and minorities IS EXACTLY the concern that STATES have in being overtaken by the "wolves'. Go read about bi-cameral legislatures and why they are prevalent in STABLE countries and why UNI-cameral legislatures are a feature of communist/socialist countries and dictators..

Your evil progressive plan to go grab Puerto Rico to enhance the "uniparty" Democrat model wouldn't work with all the "federation" language removed from the Constitution.. Why would Puerto Rico want to join into a system where THEIR "state" is a peon pauper in terms of power-sharing? Why would the smaller states want to remain in a system where their "sovereignty" is just a token joke?

That's the problem the founders faced. And why they DESIGNED a federated Republic..

It's not that hard.......for most.

 

[Dr Grump]

In the end -- you HAVE to have a Federation of states. Who willingly subjugate themselves to a Constitution. And your concern about slaves and minorities IS EXACTLY the concern that STATES have in being overtaken by the "wolves'. Go read about bi-cameral legislatures and why they are prevalent in STABLE countries and why UNI-cameral legislatures are a feature of communist/socialist countries and dictators..

Your evil progressive plan to go grab Puerto Rico to enhance the "uniparty" Democrat model wouldn't work with all the "federation" language removed from the Constitution.. Why would Puerto Rico want to join into a system where THEIR "state" is a peon pauper in terms of power-sharing? Why would the smaller states want to remain in a system where their "sovereignty" is just a token joke?

That's the problem the founders faced. And why they DESIGNED a federated Republic..

Bi-cameral legislatures are just more partisan hackery and most countries have such a system due to population more than anything. NZ has just one legislative branch and we are far from communist.

And yet despite your system the people of Puerto Rico, when given the opportunity, vote not to join the US. Constantly.

 

[Dr Grump]

And you've outlined its fundamental flaw. Why should states with lower populations have a say that alienates those at the higher end. At a state level, yeah, sure do what you want. But why should two Senators from Alaska with 600,000 people have the same voting rights as the two Senators from California with their 40 million people at a federal level. It is patently unfair and disenfranchising.

Well AH HAH !!! Your problem (as I figured) isn't JUST with the E.C. -- It's with the FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN of our REPUBLIC.. If you don't KNOW the reasons why we're a REPUBLIC -- read the Handbook and Owners Manual.. Like the "federalist" and "anti-federalist" papers.

The SENATE is FAR more equally state weighted than the E.C., You should FIX THAT first...

So -- like I said in the 1st post on this -- You NEED A FUCKING REVOLUTION to change these things. Because a Constitutional Convention --- they'd all kill each on the floor trying to come up with a 100% brand new Constitution..

So -- start a revolution Che.. Or read some of the founding documents. These guys weren't stupid about freedom and democracy...

Oh, I know why you're a republic. Mob rule 51 per cent take away the rights of the other 49 as Jefferson said. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner said Franklin. Both describing democracy.

Let's go back to Jefferson and his mob rule. "51 per cent take away the rights of 49 per cent of others.' This was from a slave owner. From a man who lived in a time where women couldn't vote. Where only land-owning men could vote. Taking away the rights of others. Blacks? Gays? How were their rights back then. How were their rights up until recently? Your FF were very flawed individuals, as is your constitution. Sure, on paper, looks great. However it doesn't have one amendment. It has 27, so it is far from perfect.

And you are right, they would tear each other apart. What does that tell you about your 'perfect' system.

You obviously don't understand the basis for the constitution or the way it was set up.

States are the prevailing entity.

Not our fucking federal government.

Exactly. So at state level I get it. But federal? Two Alaskan senators have as much say for their 600,000 constituents as do the two from Cali and their 45 million constituents. Taking it to the nth degree, 45 million people want to put up a dam to help irrigate land. 600,000 don't and due to the 2 votes each, you are at a deadlock. You guys are always going on about the tyranny of the majority, but it appears you are okay with the tyranny of the minority.