Election 2020 Voting System Weaknesses & Other Voting System Issues

[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.

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.

Senators were originally appointed by states. Wanna know why ?

To keep the federal legislature from even thinking about taking on that kind of bullshit.

Creating another house would kill smaller states. That is why they signed on.

Didn't want Virginia running the show.

Today it would be CA.

Not gonna happen.

As it is, we fucked up and passed the 17th which really hurt the states in the long run.

Not getting any close than that.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

How many STATES does New Zealand have? Is the population THERE even bigger than Texas?

 

[Dr Grump]

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...

I don't disagree with most of what you just said. I know that the states take their rights seriously. You know that most of my argument is based on how things are affected at a federal level.

As for the house, well, you need more members there. You've had 435 since 1913 when you had 97 million citizens. Now you have 330 million. The average congress critter's constituency has increased three fold. No wonder they have issues getting things done.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

New Zeland would be 26 on the list of states by population.

So, there you have it.

New Zeland gets to do what it wants with it's 4+million people.

Wisconsin (which is all we would need to kick your asses in combat) gets to do what it wants.

California (which is about 10 time larger than NZ) gets it's say.

Fuck trying to pass laws for 330,000,000 people that do justice to them all.

Not the way we were set up.

 

[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.

Senators were originally appointed by states. Wanna know why ?

To keep the federal legislature from even thinking about taking on that kind of bullshit.

Creating another house would kill smaller states. That is why they signed on.

Didn't want Virginia running the show.

Today it would be CA.

Not gonna happen.

As it is, we fucked up and passed the 17th which really hurt the states in the long run.

Not getting any close than that.

Good points. But now if you live in California your representation is now limited compared to smaller states because of where you choose to live. Maybe divide California into three states. They'd all still be bigger than Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut etc.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

How many STATES does New Zealand have? Is the population THERE even bigger than Texas?

New Zeland is 4.9 million. About the size of Alabama.

Texas is 29 million.

It is bigger than Austrailia. (25 million in 2018)

 

[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.

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.

Senators were originally appointed by states. Wanna know why ?

To keep the federal legislature from even thinking about taking on that kind of bullshit.

Creating another house would kill smaller states. That is why they signed on.

Didn't want Virginia running the show.

Today it would be CA.

Not gonna happen.

As it is, we fucked up and passed the 17th which really hurt the states in the long run.

Not getting any close than that.

Good points. But now if you live in California you representation is now limited because of where you choose to live. Maybe divide California into three states. They'd all still be bigger than Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut etc.

I'd love to divide them up. But they won't go for it. They like the homogenous block of blue electoral votes.

California runs CA.

it's counties further tailor laws

And on down to cities.

Laws close to home.

I am O.K. with my state doing health care (universal).

Not the federal government.

Time and time again states have shown themselves to be total fuck ups.

Multiply that by 100 and you've got D.C.

Just look at the shit show we are putting on right now.

 

[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.

New Zeland would be 26 on the list of states by population.

So, there you have it.

New Zeland gets to do what it wants with it's 4+million people.

Wisconsin (which is all we would need to kick your asses in combat) gets to do what it wants.

California (which is about 10 time larger than NZ) gets it's say.

Fuck trying to pass laws for 330,000,000 people that do justice to them all.

Not the way we were set up.

And I would expect our representation at federal level to be that of a state that has 5 million people (and no, Wisconsin wouldn't kick our arse), not to be equal to that of NY or California. After all, why should a state that pays a lot more into the federal coffers in taxes not get more representation. What is their carrot to stay in the Union?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

New Zeland would be 26 on the list of states by population.

So, there you have it.

New Zeland gets to do what it wants with it's 4+million people.

Wisconsin (which is all we would need to kick your asses in combat) gets to do what it wants.

California (which is about 10 time larger than NZ) gets it's say.

Fuck trying to pass laws for 330,000,000 people that do justice to them all.

Not the way we were set up.

And I would expect our representation at federal level to be that of a state that has 5 million people (and no, Wisconsin wouldn't kick our arse), not to be equal to that of NY or California. After all, why should a state that pays a lot more into the federal coffers in taxes not get more representation. What is their carrot to stay in the Union?

That is what the house was for.

House represents ==> People

Senate ==> States

Give that away and the states become meaningless.

Would we be fucked then.

 

[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.

How many STATES does New Zealand have? Is the population THERE even bigger than Texas?

You make a good point. I live in Aussie and they have six states and two territories. We have a fed, state and local govt. Most Aussies think we need only two. Most want to get rid of the state govts, which like fed govt has two houses. Have 25 million people. Don't really need to have states. I think the size of the country is the only reason it has states.

 

[Dr Grump]

That is what the house was for.

House represents ==> People

Senate ==> States

Give that away and the states become meaningless.

Would we be fucked then.

Which is fine, in which case why would you give the Senate the right to have a say in USSC appointments? Again disproportionate representation for the smaller states, which could have a negative affect on the majority of people.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

How many STATES does New Zealand have? Is the population THERE even bigger than Texas?

You make a good point. I live in Aussie and they have six states and two territories. We have a fed, state and local govt. Most Aussies think we need only two. Most want to get rid of the state govts, which like fed govt has two houses. Have 25 million people. Don't really need to have states. I think the size of the country is the only reason it has states.

Would love to visit someday !

People don't want to be homogonized. At least I don't.

You have to look at the history and development of the constitution to understand what was being sold.

Are you familiar with the Federalist Papers ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That is what the house was for.

House represents ==> People

Senate ==> States

Give that away and the states become meaningless.

Would we be fucked then.

Which is fine, in which case why would you give the Senate the right to have a say in USSC appointments? Again disproportionate representation for the smaller states, which could have a negative affect on the majority of people.

Step back for a minute.

We are "The Unites States". We bound ourselves together for protection.

We are one entity looking outward. We are a nation.

Inward we are 50 little entities.

Once you are elected to federal office...you do the work of the nation. (one entity) You fight wars, make treaties, take care of currency...protect the border....etc. So the person from Wyoming has no less a mandate and does not represent a population....he is just one of 100 as is the person from CA.

These assholes are not supposed to be doing the peoples business.

That is why they vote on the court.

You don't have more power because you represent more people....you don't. You represent 1 state. Each state is equal.

 

[Doc7505]

Mathematical impossibilities may be what trips up Democrat plans

Mathematical impossibilities may be what trips up Democrat plans

All over the country, Trump’s lawyers are gathering evidence showing that Democrats deliberately interfered with the election outcome. These facts are needed, but one can make a good case that the most powerful evidence of all is mathematical d...

www.americanthinker.com

November 8, 2020 ~~ By Andrea Widburg

All over the country, Trump’s lawyers are gathering evidence showing that Democrats deliberately interfered with the election outcome. These facts are needed, but one can make a good case that the most powerful evidence of all is mathematical data showing that this election outcome could not possibly have happened. One would think that the Democrats – who “believe in Science” – would be all over this stuff. The first anomaly is Joe Biden’s missing coattails and Trump’s missing coat. Trump’s 70 million voters are people who have a specific vision of America. They see it as a nation with a constitutionally limited government, a color-blind melting pot of people all holding fealty to America, and a place for an honestly run free market. They want low taxes, no unnecessary foreign wars, a secure border, energy independence, and high support for Israel combined with ow support for the U.N., to name a few things. These are not people...(Read Full Post)



Comment:
Referenced within the article is this article:
There is Undeniable Mathematical Evidence the Election is Being Stolen
There is Undeniable Mathematical Evidence the Election is Being Stolen | The Red Elephants

This election stinks to high heaven. How stupid do the Dmocats think Americans are? A large lump of well over 100k votes, by strange "coincidence" all for Biden, and counted after the inexplicable stoppage in vote counting when President Trump had the momentum.... Sure, pull the other one.
If SCOTUS is smart enough to figure out how to nullify the fraud, anything short of re-doing the election in states where there was obvious fraudshould occur, with judges and observers from both parties present, and given 100% access this time.
Indeed, the Progressive Marxist Socialist/DSA Democrat Left mistake was being over confident and sloppy about thier obvious election fraud. They've never been very bright. Citizen journalists with smart phones have captured dozens of "irregularities"and fraud, hundreds of eyewitnesses have come forward with relevant testimony of fraud and countless statistical impossibilities are everywhere. The democrats really stepped in it this time.
Mark Levin stated the only constitutional way to change voting is with the representatives in the house in each state, not the courts of each state. Then those late election law changes 2 states already in front of Supreme Court but many more could and should follow through as well. Those votes counted after midnight should be null and void. By law they have until midnight to post results! And for sure the 138,339 votes for Biden and Zero for Trump should be thrown out in Michigan! Impossible for that to happen. Same odds as flipping a coin and expecting tails 138,339 times in a row! When the electorate is split 50/50. We’ve been doing it all wrong thinking voting matters. Only vote counting matters. Just like in all other socialist countries, we just didn’t realize we’d already gone full socialism! The constitution PROTECTS AMERICANS against a tyrannical govt. We have crossed the rubicon!!!

"This Felt Like a Drug Deal!" - Asian-American Ballot Observer in Detroit Describes Mysterious Van Dropping Off 61 Boxes of Ballots at 4 AM (VIDEO) | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

FYI – There is much more information to come out of Michigan.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

How many STATES does New Zealand have? Is the population THERE even bigger than Texas?

New Zeland is 4.9 million. About the size of Alabama.

Texas is 29 million.

It is bigger than Austrailia. (25 million in 2018)

Well there in lies the BIG DIFF.. But NOT the only diff.. The regions of USA vary WIDELY in what they need from govt and how people live..

What's the diff in "cost of living" between cities in NZ?? HERE -- people in NYC/LA apts the size of gas station bathroom are paying 4 times MORE -- than folks in MANY others states.. Doesn't even mean they DONT HAVE nicer homes/land.

I sold a $1Mill tract home in Cali that was 1400 sq ft living space -- went to Tenn to escape the growing Socialist/Banana republic out there.. It was "funny money".. EVERYTHING inflated over most other states. Bought 3.5 times the house on more than acre for 1/2 that price..

People have different jobs, industries, recreation opportunities, etc.. Different ETHNIC and cultural heritages..

There's no comparison Doc.. None to New Zealand.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

Woods

@RealJamesWoods
This woman is calling every Trump voter a “Nazi.” As Arizona’s Secretary of State, she will be in charge of any recount. Should she not recuse herself after vocally dismissing half the electorate in her state?

James woods for president of the New Confederate states of America

 

[FRIKSHUN]

The Electoral College is a fraud

Then the process of equal state vote in the SENATE is a fraud..

Does not follow.
The Senate does not elect the POTUS. The EC however, does. Topic here is (apparently) "voting system weaknesses and other voting system issues". That's got nothing to do with the Senate.

When State X holds an election in which 2,463,521 vote for Snoot and 2,463,522 vote for Floont, and the state then goes to Congress and lies through its proverbial teeth that "wow, it's unanimous, everybody in our state wants Floont" --- that's an issue. A glaring one. There's no excuse for it. Never even mind the fact that neither Snoot nor Floont could even crack 50% of the State X vote.

That shit started when James Madison, who had something of a hand in designing the EC, was still around to smell it, and his nose turned up. He wanted to ban the practice. Yet here it is, innit.

Further foundation of fraud is in the fact that such EC system, in automatically shitcanning the desires of "red" voters in "blue" states, "blue" voters in "red" states, and everybody who voted in droves for Snoot, it also creates those artificial terms of "red" and "blue", without which those terms would literally not exist, and thereby divides the nation; it as well, it ensures that a depressed voter turnout continues forever, since those red-in-blue-state voters and blue-in-red-state voters figure, correctly, "what's the point" and don't bother to show up; and if that's not enough it further degrades democracy by also ensuring that the Duopoly perpetuates itself forever with never a sliver of hope for any challenger outside it. Because those WTA "red" and "blue" states are the only choice (singular intentional) there is.

So if you want an entrenched corrupt duopolistic system that depresses voting, tosses votes in the shitcan on massive scales, divides the country and locks out any potential for reform, the EC is your boy.

If not, then yes --- fraud. Or as I'd put it to be more accurate, "fucked up".

The EC was created to bribe the slaveholding states into the union and to create an Élite Force of the Enlightened who would know more about candidates than Josiah Q Publick, who had no access to 18th century internets, planes, trains, automobiles, radio, TV or even telegraph and therefore little to no knowledge of who Snoot and Floont even are. Those issues have long since ceased to be relevant. The only positive use of the EC left is when it stands for "Eric Clapton".

When news sources like Sky News and multiple others seem to have a much clearer view of what has been happening in this country compared to what our MSM can report to us. The following article exactly mirrors my feelings. I have been thinking, and occasionally saying, since election night that the unbelievable fiasco that is being accomplished to derail the fair election process in this country may well be a "God-send" for President Trump and his family. After four years of harassment, threats, belittlement, humiliation and lies about this man and his family, it is now high time for him to return to a wonderful life he is definitely entitled to. Be content with all the great things you have accomplished in a very much obstructed path since your inauguration. Although the self proclaimed new administration intends to undo many things you have accomplished, there are many things they cannot undo: i.e. the uncovering of a corrupt deep state, the draining of much of the swamp in both parties that we previously had confidence in to run the country properly, the revelation of how corrupt our news media sources are, the rebuilding of a respectable military, building the best economy, employment rates, and favorable tax structure in history(before being destroyed by some strange pandemic, which now seems to also be responsible for the attempted removal of you from office, when all other efforts failed). You have gained an enormous amount of followers worldwide and obviously here in the states by the number of votes you got, even though many of your votes may have not been counted for various reasons. Let's not forget the regained respect you have brought to this country from other countries who were supposed to be enemies, the regained advantage we now have in world trade, and the rebuilding among common citizens that the USA is a good and respectable country and we do not need to drop plane loads of money on Iran's tarmacs or cowtow to terrorists in attempts to gain their friendship and cover up for our stupidity. To repeat, there are many things you have accomplished that will come under immediate fire from a new administration, and they will be able to undo some good things you have managed to get done. However, the many people you have as supporters will not forget what you have been able to accomplish for us, and, perhaps more important, we will remember what you have instilled here that even the worst of the worst will have a hard time taking away from good, patriotic American citizens. Among those: that respect for the law and justice throughout is paramount, respect for family and neighbors, love of country and the desire to keep it respectable, respect for our flag and national anthem, only to mention a few.
Thanks for a great ride. Because of you we are all much better prepared to face and fend off whatever the next few years will bring. This election corruption will hopefully be resolved and never allowed again in this country and there will come another election. You could never be expected to do what you have done again, but perhaps you have instilled in some brave young, democracy loving, patriotic American man the desire to take over where you may have to leave off and continue the difficult trail you so well began to clear. Your influence from outside the White House can well be as significant as it has been from within. There are multitudes of freedom loving, patriotic Americans still depending on you.
Hopefully the rest of your trip is not as turbulent as the last four years have been. And yet, through it all, you still look ten times stronger and more presidential than the other sleepy old man. Unfortunately, I don't expect him to stay in office very long. And then, "Every little girl in the world will realize that anything is possible, regardless of what you need to do to get there." Won't that be a glorious day? OMG

 

[MarathonMike]

If Georgia is truly going to be a hand recount, then I take that to mean the Dominion systems will not be used at all. If that is true, then this recount will be the acid test for the Dominion software. If there is no discrepancy, then it's game set and match to Biden. However If there is a significant difference between the Dominion counts and the hand re-counts, then that blows up the ENTIRE election.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Dr Grump
If we divide electoral college votes PROPORTIONALLY then it helps to ensure all votes count instead of giving all electoral votes to the majority winner in that state, when the votes were split closer to 50/50 or 40/60 in some cases.

The reason STATE votes elect the Pres/VP is these offices are only supposed to govern matters concerning the States and PHYSICAL country as a whole geographically.

The federal govt was never designed to "micromanage" domestic social policies AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS like education, health care, and marriage benefits that belong to people and states to choose democratically WITHOUT govt mandates or interference in personal choice and liberties.

If you look at the map of red votes by districts vs. blue votes by population, you will see the very reason that EXTERNAL policies and jurisdiction lean Conservative while INTERNAL social priorities within high density urban populations lean LIBERAL.

This makes sense that external borders and security of our states and country are the focus of Conservative beliefs that federal and executive offices are mainly to govern national security and interstate commerce.

While liberal beliefs that government should secure social welfare and programs to help the people dominate urban areas of denser populations, where more people depend on govt for assistance instead of owning and managing their own property and programs independently.

Instead of trying to pit one group over another, the offices of President and VP could be SHARED by both party leaders to fulfill and represent BOTH sectors of the American population. Otherwise, either party alone is insufficient and incompetent to represent the other group, thus depriving half the nation of representation instead of serving the entire public by equal protections of the laws inclusively, regardless of political class or creed.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Dear Dr Grump
If we divide electoral college votes PROPORTIONALLY then it helps to ensure all votes count instead of giving all electoral votes to the majority winner in that state, when the votes were split closer to 50/50 or 40/60 in some cases.

The reason STATE votes elect the Pres/VP is these offices are only supposed to govern matters concerning the States and PHYSICAL Nation as a whole geographically.

The federal govt was NEVER designed to "micromanage" domestic social policies like education, health care, and marriage benefits AFFECTING INDIVIDUALS that belong to people and states to choose democratically WITHOUT govt mandates or interference in personal choice and liberties.

If you look at the map of red votes by districts vs. blue votes by population, you will see the very reason that EXTERNAL policies and jurisdiction lean Conservative while INTERNAL social priorities within our cities lean LIBERAL.

This makes sense that external borders and security of our states and country are the focus of Conservative beliefs that federal and executive offices are mainly to govern national security and interstate commerce.

While liberal beliefs that government should secure social welfare and programs to help the people dominate urban areas of denser populations, where more people depend on govt for assistance instead of owning and managing their own property and programs independently.

Instead of trying to pit one group over another, the offices of President and VP could be SHARED by both party leaders to fulfill and represent BOTH sectors of the American population. Otherwise, either party alone is insufficient and incompetent to represent the other group, thus depriving half the nation of representation instead of serving the entire public by equal protections of the laws, regardless of political class or creed inclusively.