Voter fraud is real, and may have changed New Hampshire Senate race...

[Syriusly]

So how many votes do we have actual proof that were 'fraud' in New Hampshire?

So far according to this article- none.

What the article brings up are some potential issues- which might- or might not- have resulted in false registration- and might and might not- have led to illegitimate votes.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"

All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.

Time for New Hampshire to do so.

Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.

I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.

How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?

Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?

There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.

Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

The US has a form of democracy, but it's not a very good one, as it doesn't lead to much in the way of democracy, when you have 20% of the people deciding the outcome of the election, and many votes being "wasted" because of the way the system works.

 

[Montrovant]

Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.

I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.

How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?

Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?

There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.

Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

The US has a form of democracy, but it's not a very good one, as it doesn't lead to much in the way of democracy, when you have 20% of the people deciding the outcome of the election, and many votes being "wasted" because of the way the system works.

The presidential election is only one of a lot of different elections. More important than any other individual election, but far from the only one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

The US has a form of democracy, but it's not a very good one, as it doesn't lead to much in the way of democracy, when you have 20% of the people deciding the outcome of the election, and many votes being "wasted" because of the way the system works.

The presidential election is only one of a lot of different elections. More important than any other individual election, but far from the only one.

Yes it is. But the same can be said of France. But they managed to make a presidential election that works for the people and is fair. Go figure.

 

[Rustic]

I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"

All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.

Time for New Hampshire to do so.

Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.

I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.

How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?

Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?

There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.

Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Getting rid of The electoral college would result in mob rule... And turn this country into a shit eating democracy

 

[Montrovant]

Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.

I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.

How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?

Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?

There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.

Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Getting rid of The electoral college would result in mob rule... And turn this country into a shit eating democracy

How does getting rid of the electoral college result in mob rule? Most elections use a total vote count system, rather than anything like the electoral college. And however a president is elected, it doesn't change the representative nature of our government. Electing a president by vote totals rather than the EC would not suddenly make all legislation up for public voting, nor foreign policy, nor appointment of USSC judges, etc.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Getting rid of The electoral college would result in mob rule... And turn this country into a shit eating democracy

How does getting rid of the electoral college result in mob rule? Most elections use a total vote count system, rather than anything like the electoral college. And however a president is elected, it doesn't change the representative nature of our government. Electing a president by vote totals rather than the EC would not suddenly make all legislation up for public voting, nor foreign policy, nor appointment of USSC judges, etc.

It's just fear tactics. People who have no clue about any other system, hardly even know about their own system, and yet they read something somewhere and instead of "fake news" flashing inside that brain of theirs, they just accept it because it's written in a manner in which they'll just accept. The rich overlords get their minions to think how they like.

 

[Rustic]

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Getting rid of The electoral college would result in mob rule... And turn this country into a shit eating democracy

How does getting rid of the electoral college result in mob rule? Most elections use a total vote count system, rather than anything like the electoral college. And however a president is elected, it doesn't change the representative nature of our government. Electing a president by vote totals rather than the EC would not suddenly make all legislation up for public voting, nor foreign policy, nor appointment of USSC judges, etc.

It's just fear tactics. People who have no clue about any other system, hardly even know about their own system, and yet they read something somewhere and instead of "fake news" flashing inside that brain of theirs, they just accept it because it's written in a manner in which they'll just accept. The rich overlords get their minions to think how they like.

We cant have progressive areas like crazy Cali determining who is president...

 

[eflatminor]

I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"

All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.

Time for New Hampshire to do so.

Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.

I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.

How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?

Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?

There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.

Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.

I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.

How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?

Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?

There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.

Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

Okay, I'll cal you crazy.

The reason I call you crazy is because you don't understand how other systems work.

With PR, LA, NY and Chicago would not control the country.

Chicago has a population of 2.6 million, LA 3.7 million and NY 8 million,

That's 14.3 million population out of 320 million. There is no way in hell that these three cities would control the election. They make up such a small percentage.

If you look at countries with proportional representation you see more parties and more choice. Perhaps a party like the Democratic Party would do well in some places, but every vote counts. A farmer in Wyoming would have as much a vote as anyone else.

In the US currently only 20% of the voters have a vote that actually really counts towards the election. Only THREE of these states are in the bottom 50% for population size. So, 20% of people decide the election for the rest of the people.

If a Republican votes Republican in California, their vote is meaningless. It doesn't help the Republicans, it doesn't give this person a voice at all.

When a CDU supporter votes in Bremen, the city with the highest SPD (left wing) vote in the country, their vote COUNTS towards the make up of parliament. The same for a SPD voter in Bavaria which has the highest CDU/CSU vote in the country.

That's the difference.

If you don't understand the system, you'll believe that PR will lead to cities having power. But it's just not the case. PR is one person, one vote and that's how it works. The PEOPLE decide the govt, unlike the US election where the President is chosen by 20% of the voters.

 

[eflatminor]

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

Okay, I'll cal you crazy.

The reason I call you crazy is because you don't understand how other systems work.

With PR, LA, NY and Chicago would not control the country.

Chicago has a population of 2.6 million, LA 3.7 million and NY 8 million,

That's 14.3 million population out of 320 million. There is no way in hell that these three cities would control the election. They make up such a small percentage.

If you look at countries with proportional representation you see more parties and more choice. Perhaps a party like the Democratic Party would do well in some places, but every vote counts. A farmer in Wyoming would have as much a vote as anyone else.

In the US currently only 20% of the voters have a vote that actually really counts towards the election. Only THREE of these states are in the bottom 50% for population size. So, 20% of people decide the election for the rest of the people.

If a Republican votes Republican in California, their vote is meaningless. It doesn't help the Republicans, it doesn't give this person a voice at all.

When a CDU supporter votes in Bremen, the city with the highest SPD (left wing) vote in the country, their vote COUNTS towards the make up of parliament. The same for a SPD voter in Bavaria which has the highest CDU/CSU vote in the country.

That's the difference.

If you don't understand the system, you'll believe that PR will lead to cities having power. But it's just not the case. PR is one person, one vote and that's how it works. The PEOPLE decide the govt, unlike the US election where the President is chosen by 20% of the voters.

Oh I understand perfectly.

Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[tigerred59]

I live for the day, 2aguy gets a fuckin life and gets off Obama's nuts!!

 

[Montrovant]

Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.

I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.

How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?

Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?

There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.

Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

That's nice, but doesn't change the fact that electing the president by pure vote count, rather than through the EC, would not make this country into a direct democracy.

 

[RealDave]

Yep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......

New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016

Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.

Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.

It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.

Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016

Same day registration should be banned. Way too much corruption and cheating going on.

This is further proof that the left hates democracy and will do anything to subvert the will of the people.

This from the king of voter suppression.

 

[RealDave]

Democrats oppose all measures to reduce or detect voter fraud. Democrats are completely racist and corrupt.

Yes, the voter suppression argument. There is all this voter fraud so we get to suppress the vote.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

Okay, I'll cal you crazy.

The reason I call you crazy is because you don't understand how other systems work.

With PR, LA, NY and Chicago would not control the country.

Chicago has a population of 2.6 million, LA 3.7 million and NY 8 million,

That's 14.3 million population out of 320 million. There is no way in hell that these three cities would control the election. They make up such a small percentage.

If you look at countries with proportional representation you see more parties and more choice. Perhaps a party like the Democratic Party would do well in some places, but every vote counts. A farmer in Wyoming would have as much a vote as anyone else.

In the US currently only 20% of the voters have a vote that actually really counts towards the election. Only THREE of these states are in the bottom 50% for population size. So, 20% of people decide the election for the rest of the people.

If a Republican votes Republican in California, their vote is meaningless. It doesn't help the Republicans, it doesn't give this person a voice at all.

When a CDU supporter votes in Bremen, the city with the highest SPD (left wing) vote in the country, their vote COUNTS towards the make up of parliament. The same for a SPD voter in Bavaria which has the highest CDU/CSU vote in the country.

That's the difference.

If you don't understand the system, you'll believe that PR will lead to cities having power. But it's just not the case. PR is one person, one vote and that's how it works. The PEOPLE decide the govt, unlike the US election where the President is chosen by 20% of the voters.

Oh I understand perfectly.

Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

Ain't gonna happen.

No, I doubt it would happen.

Why?

Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those ******* voters, hey?

 

[eflatminor]

Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.

Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.

New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Again, good luck.

A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....

The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.

Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

That's nice, but doesn't change the fact that electing the president by pure vote count, rather than through the EC, would not make this country into a direct democracy.

A step in that direction. A really bad one.

 

[eflatminor]

The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.

Good luck with that amendment.

Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.

We have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. Choosing the president through direct voting rather than the Electoral College would not make the country into a direct democracy. We would continue to be a constitutional republic, and a representative democracy.

I don't understand why so many people argue that getting rid of the EC would turn the country into a democracy, as though we don't have a form of democracy now.

Call me crazy, but I find the idea of LA, NY and Chicago choosing every President from here on out less than appealing.

Good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

Okay, I'll cal you crazy.

The reason I call you crazy is because you don't understand how other systems work.

With PR, LA, NY and Chicago would not control the country.

Chicago has a population of 2.6 million, LA 3.7 million and NY 8 million,

That's 14.3 million population out of 320 million. There is no way in hell that these three cities would control the election. They make up such a small percentage.

If you look at countries with proportional representation you see more parties and more choice. Perhaps a party like the Democratic Party would do well in some places, but every vote counts. A farmer in Wyoming would have as much a vote as anyone else.

In the US currently only 20% of the voters have a vote that actually really counts towards the election. Only THREE of these states are in the bottom 50% for population size. So, 20% of people decide the election for the rest of the people.

If a Republican votes Republican in California, their vote is meaningless. It doesn't help the Republicans, it doesn't give this person a voice at all.

When a CDU supporter votes in Bremen, the city with the highest SPD (left wing) vote in the country, their vote COUNTS towards the make up of parliament. The same for a SPD voter in Bavaria which has the highest CDU/CSU vote in the country.

That's the difference.

If you don't understand the system, you'll believe that PR will lead to cities having power. But it's just not the case. PR is one person, one vote and that's how it works. The PEOPLE decide the govt, unlike the US election where the President is chosen by 20% of the voters.

Oh I understand perfectly.

Again, good luck with that Constitutional amendment.

Ain't gonna happen.

No, I doubt it would happen.

Why?

Because a Constitutional Amendment takes a lot of people. Now, the Republicans don't want change. Why? Because the system favors them massively. Who'd want to change a system that basically allows them to sell their services to the highest bidder rather than listen to those ******* voters, hey?

Nope. It's a rural vs. urban issue. It's about population centers controlling the outcome. But you're right, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[tigerred59]

and New Hampshire isn't even on the list of known election fraudsters.

Judicial Watch Warns 11 States to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face Federal Lawsuit - Judicial Watch

• Alabama: Choctaw, Conecuh, Greene, Hale, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Perry, Washington, Wilcox.

• Florida: Clay, Flagler, Okaloosa, Osceola, Santa Rosa, St. Johns.

• Georgia: Bryan, Columbia, DeKalb, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Lee, Marion, McIntosh, Oconee.

• Illinois: Alexander, Bureau, Cass, Clark, Crawford, DuPage, Franklin, Grundy, Hardin, Henderson, Jefferson, Jersey, Massac, McHenry, Mercer, Monroe, Pulaski, Rock Island, Sangamon, Scott, Union, Wabash, Washington, White.

• Iowa: Scott, Johnson.

• Kentucky: Anderson, Bath, Boone, Breathitt, Caldwell, Carlisle, Cumberland, Fulton, Gallatin, Greenup, Hancock, Henry, Jefferson, Jessamine, Kenton, Livingston, Magoffin, McCracken, Menifee, Mercer, Monroe, Oldham, Powell, Russell, Scott, Spencer, Trigg, Trimble, Wolfe, Woodford.

• Maryland: Montgomery.

• New Jersey: Essex, Somerset.

• New York: Nassau.

• North Carolina: Buncombe, Camden, Chatham, Cherokee, Clay, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Madison, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Orange, Union, Watauga, Yancey.

• Tennessee: Williamson.

not true, but facts mean nothing to you nuts....listen, Trump did not get the popular vote....(sigh)

 

[RodISHI]

and New Hampshire isn't even on the list of known election fraudsters.

Judicial Watch Warns 11 States to Clean Voter Registration Lists or Face Federal Lawsuit - Judicial Watch

• Alabama: Choctaw, Conecuh, Greene, Hale, Lowndes, Macon, Marengo, Perry, Washington, Wilcox.

• Florida: Clay, Flagler, Okaloosa, Osceola, Santa Rosa, St. Johns.

• Georgia: Bryan, Columbia, DeKalb, Fayette, Forsyth, Fulton, Lee, Marion, McIntosh, Oconee.

• Illinois: Alexander, Bureau, Cass, Clark, Crawford, DuPage, Franklin, Grundy, Hardin, Henderson, Jefferson, Jersey, Massac, McHenry, Mercer, Monroe, Pulaski, Rock Island, Sangamon, Scott, Union, Wabash, Washington, White.

• Iowa: Scott, Johnson.

• Kentucky: Anderson, Bath, Boone, Breathitt, Caldwell, Carlisle, Cumberland, Fulton, Gallatin, Greenup, Hancock, Henry, Jefferson, Jessamine, Kenton, Livingston, Magoffin, McCracken, Menifee, Mercer, Monroe, Oldham, Powell, Russell, Scott, Spencer, Trigg, Trimble, Wolfe, Woodford.

• Maryland: Montgomery.

• New Jersey: Essex, Somerset.

• New York: Nassau.

• North Carolina: Buncombe, Camden, Chatham, Cherokee, Clay, Dare, Durham, Guilford, Madison, Mecklenburg, New Hanover, Orange, Union, Watauga, Yancey.

• Tennessee: Williamson.

not true, but facts mean nothing to you nuts....listen, Trump did not get the popular vote....(sigh)

Yes he did when you delete all of the irregular votes throughout the country. Sorry you don't get to add illegal voters to the count when it is all said and done.