How the electoral process works.

:laugh4: Got this in my Spam mail today.

Quote:

---

Voter writes down the name of the candidate he most favors as dictator.

Voter writes down the name of the party he most prefers.

Both names are converted to numbers using the enigma code. These numbers are jumbled at random and added together.

Voter proceeds to name his favorite flavor of ice-cream. If his original candidate likes the same flavor, one adds 1,000 onto the previous score. If the candidate does not, one deducts 1,000 points. These values are doubled if the voter has a high perception skill. If the candidate does not eat ice cream because he is a vegan, then a Green Party member has somehow got in and a new election must be called.

Resultant number is subsequently divided by fifteen and rounded up to one decimal point.

A +2 die of entanglement is thrown. The outcome is multiplied by the first number of which the voter thought.

Voter chooses a card from the deck. If it is a black card, one deducts 100. If the card is red, one adds 150. If it is a joker, repeat previous step. Threes and nines are wild - four buys another card. If the current Warlord is a Republican, all black cards are removed from deck before play.

This final figure may be skewed by the electoral campaigns, which take the form of a gathering of color-coded, but otherwise identical monkeys flinging [expletive] at each other.

On voting day, voter inputs number into RepubliCom voting machine and collects fuel coupons.

Final tallies are added together for each state, then ignored as the Electoral College decides it with a coin toss.

---

That is bizarre. Our Electoral system is very straight forward and is based on the number of Representatives and Senators from each state added together (plus the number of the State with the lowest congressional value given to DC - currently 3), as mentioned in the constitution. Whoever wins the State's popular vote wins all of the electors (with minor exception). This is another reason why we are a Constitutional Republic.

I like the electoral College. It makes sense and is workable.

Internet 1.0 ftw. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

That is bizarre. Our Electoral system is very straight forward and is based on the number of Representatives and Senators from each state added together (plus the number of the State with the lowest congressional value given to DC - currently 3), as mentioned in the constitution. Whoever wins the State's popular vote wins all of the electors. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic.

I like the electoral College. It makes sense and is workable.

---

You could cut the electoral college voters out of the process altogether and just make it a state electoral vote system and it would still work just as well.

The system is archaic, superfluous and an unnecessary middleman between the vote and the result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

You could cut the electoral college voters out of the process altogether and just make it a state electoral vote system and it would still work just as well.

---

So keep the system, ditch the ceremonial voters? I'd agree to that. It would probably save some money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

So keep the system, ditch the ceremonial voters? I'd agree to that. It would probably save some money.

---

I think the thing with that is that once you ditch the voters questions come up about why keep the electoral system at all. In effect, the prime argument I hear to defend it (that it's kind of a cushion to make sure people aren't voting themselves in a dictator or something, over and over) has been made somewhat obsolete by both the primary system and term limits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I think the thing with that is that once you ditch the voters questions come up about why keep the electoral system at all. In effect, the prime argument I hear to defend it (that it's kind of a cushion to make sure people aren't voting themselves in a dictator or something, over and over) has been made somewhat obsolete by both the primary system and term limits.

---

No it hasn't. The primary system is not a government system - I don't trust it and I have no control over it because I am not a Republican or Democrat. The electoral college ensures that most states are considered in elections instead of Cali, Texas, Florida, New York, Il and Ohio. It gives a voice to the people in suburban or rural areas who would be marginalized by rather homogeneous metropolitan votes across the board. It also ensures a web of acceptance for the winning candidate instead of center-coastal split.

Good idea about getting rid of the actual electors, they are unnecessary.

Also, when were voters "ditched"? You mean when we were forming our government and writing the Constitution?

Your guy is winning electoral votes by a huge margin because he convinced a more varied swathe of Americans that he was the right candidate for the job. Even though he doesn't have half the vote yet, he is still leading by big electoral numbers. He has done a better job in his campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

No it hasn't. The primary system is not a government system - I don't trust it and I have no control over it because I am not a Republican or Democrat. The electoral college ensures that most states are considered in elections instead of Cali, Texas, Florida, New York, Il and Ohio. It gives a voice to the people in suburban or rural areas who would be marginalized by rather homogeneous metropolitan votes across the board. It also ensures a web of acceptance for the winning candidate instead of center-coastal split.

Good idea about getting rid of the actual electors, they are unnecessary.

Also, when were voters "ditched"? You mean when they were forming our government and writing the Constitution?

---

...huh? I may be missing something but I'm lost what you mean with the ditched question.

At any rate, another interpretation of the electoral college system is that it basically hands decision on the election to the same 3-9 states (or even just 1 or 2 in some elections). I'm not a fan of it, obviously.

I don't think the whole nation should be decided by "hmmm will the retirees and Jewish communities in Florida call it for the guy who wants to cut medicare or the guy who is less vocal supporting Israel?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

...huh? I may be missing something but I'm lost what you mean with the ditched question.

---

"I think the thing with that is that once you ditch the voters" - you've just said it. My reply insinuated that by your standard they were never "on board" in the first place, since the electoral college was enshrined in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

"I think the thing with that is that once you ditch the voters" - you've just said it. My reply insinuated that by your standard they were never "on board" in the first place, since the electoral college was enshrined in the Constitution.

---

Oh by voters I mean if we get rid of the "ceremonial electoral voters", I don't know the technically correct term. Delegates? Electoral voters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

...huh? I may be missing something but I'm lost what you mean with the ditched question.

At any rate, another interpretation of the electoral college system is that it basically hands decision on the election to the same 3-9 states (or even just 1 or 2 in some elections). I'm not a fan of it, obviously.

I don't think the whole nation should be decided by "hmmm will the retirees and Jewish communities in Florida call it for the guy who wants to cut medicare or the guy who is less vocal supporting Israel?"

---

It isn't decided by Florida. Sometimes it comes down to Florida, but more appropriately that is because the state is split between Dems and Reps, unlike many other states. Whichever candidate wins the majority of their own party and a sizable portion of independents and the other party in a closely split state, that should explain itself why it would be more important than a State that doesn't think too hard about its candidate like New York or South Dakota.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Oh by voters I mean if we get rid of the "ceremonial electoral voters", I don't know the technically correct term. Delegates? Electoral voters?

---

I see. I thought you meant voters as in the direct and popular vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

It isn't decided by Florida. Sometimes it comes down to Florida, but more appropriately that is because the state is split between Dems and Reps, unlike many other states. Whichever candidate wins the majority of their own party and a sizable portion of independents and the other party in a closely split state, that should explain itself why it would be more important than a State that doesn't think too hard about its candidate like New York or South Dakota.

---

I was just using it as one example. You know what I meant. And, states like New York, or California, or South Dakota, or Arkansas, don't think much about their candidates because they don't have to. The prevailing mindset is "eh, no matter what we do our state is going x color anyway." So I reiterate my original point, it comes down to a few (or even one) split states deciding it-- rather than the "terrible" scenario of pure popular vote.

why isnt it just: one person, one vote... Whoever gets the most votes wins.

Too easy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

why isnt it just: one person, one vote... Whoever gets the most votes wins.

Too easy?

---

Yes! ~D

I'd prefer ditching the actual electors, and making the states follow the example of Maine and Nebraska and split their votes by district, with the 2 senate votes going to the overall winner. The disparity in size of Cali, Texas and New York really skew the results.

After the lame debate last night I would like to see the vote decided by mortal combat.

The Electoral College is a necessary evil. One man, one vote doesn’t work well for a presidential election, at least in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

After the lame debate last night I would like to see the vote decided by mortal combat.

The Electoral College is a necessary evil. One man, one vote doesn’t work well for a presidential election, at least in the US.

---

I don't know what you would base that on, since we've never done direct democracy or election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I don't know what you would base that on, since we've never done direct democracy or election.

---

You don’t have to do something to know it isn’t right.

The Electoral College prevents the wealthy politician the ability to pander to the heavily populated states to get the popular vote. A corrupt candidate could make promises to benefit 4 or 5 states and practically crap on the rest and still win the popular vote.

I was about to detail out an example but I don’t think I need to. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

You don’t have to do something to know it isn’t right.

The Electoral College prevents the wealthy politician the ability to pander to the heavily populated states to get the popular vote. A corrupt candidate could make promises to benefit 4 or 5 states and practically crap on the rest and still win the popular vote.

I was about to detail out an example but I don’t think I need to. :bow:

---

Compared to now when the wealthy politicians just pander to the few battleground states (Ohio, Florida, ect...) and do basically nothing but be in a major political party to get the party stronghold states and win the presidency?

I would prefer having them pander to states with big populations than those who have lower populations, but are battleground ones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TevashSzat

Compared to now when the wealthy politicians just pander to the few battleground states (Ohio, Florida, ect...) and do basically nothing but be in a major political party to get the party stronghold states and win the presidency?

I would prefer having them pander to states with big populations than those who have lower populations, but are battleground ones

---

You make it sound simple but considering how closes and controversial the last election was I think there is more to it than pandering to a few states. Additionally the pandering is just hand shakes and kissing babies rather than the promise of tax cuts and other perks that are state specific like it could be without the EC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

You don’t have to do something to know it isn’t right.

The Electoral College prevents the wealthy politician the ability to pander to the heavily populated states to get the popular vote. A corrupt candidate could make promises to benefit 4 or 5 states and practically crap on the rest and still win the popular vote.

I was about to detail out an example but I don’t think I need to. :bow:

---

Wait, when so many elections come down to like 1-5 states, how does our system prevent this?

All this over a simple joke?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

All this over a simple joke?

---

Very controversial topics typically are the target of humor. ;)

Ok, so I ask again... since no one really answered.

Why not one person = one vote?

Is two persons in a more populated state worth the same as one person in a less populated state in the US of A?

I just don't get it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Ok, so I ask again... since no one really answered.

Why not one person = one vote?

Is two persons in a more populated state worth the same as one person in a less populated state in the US of A?

I just don't get it...

---

It's complicated, Kad. I would be in favor of what you are saying, but it's not how our Constitution is set up. But it's a lot of factors from our history. One being the civil war, and the north and south trying to keep their power equal to avert violence. So there is disproportionate weight to many southern states and midwestern states despite their relatively sparse population. Just as one example.

There are not a lot of clear cut "oooooh... I see" reasons why it's "good" and why we use it. The reasons for using/defending it have changed over time as circumstances changed. Originally, as in at the founding of the U.S., it was written in to allow final veto power by the landowning elite to make sure that the "uneducated rabble" didn't vote themselves out of being a democracy by voting themselves in a popular dictator over and over. Electoral voters can commit "infidelity" and not vote for the same candidate as their district they represent did. The consequences for this I don't recall at the moment as this is a rather undusted topic of Constitutional study that isn't visited very often. But I know these electoral voters are not "voted in" nor in any way directly accountable to the voters themselves.

But, you will hear a variety of arguments as to why it's good and works. My cynical answer is, the major parties have adapted to this and all of their strategies revolve around it. I'd go further and say the Republicans are at a marked disadvantage carrying what looks like "most of the country" on a blue vs. red map... but they're largely the unpopulated, large, sparsely developed states in the center of the country. Population centers and major cities and industrialized areas TEND to lean blue.

I would love to comment your post... Because I do honestly think the system is stupid.

However, you kind of highlighted the stupid areas, so there is really no need to:)


I will however write something for the trolls.

A)

Quote:

---

Electoral voters can commit "infidelity" and not vote for the same candidate as their district they represent did

---

This is not very democratic, is it? I mean, The word is based on the old greek tradition, this rule goes completly against this tradition... Am I wrong?


B)

Quote:

---

it was written in to allow final veto power by the landowning elite to make sure that the "uneducated rabble" didn't vote themselves out of being a democracy by voting themselves in a popular dictator over and over

---

Does not the constituation say no one can be president for more than two terms (8 years)?

So is this not a moot point?

C)

Quote:

---

My cynical answer is, the major parties have adapted to this and all of their strategies revolve around it. I'd go further and say the Republicans are at a marked disadvantage carrying what looks like "most of the country" on a blue vs. red map... but they're largely the unpopulated, large, sparsely developed states in the center of the country. Population centers and major cities and industrialized areas TEND to lean blue.

---

Meaning a hillbillys vote is worth more than a Yale students?
Interesting form of voting system...

Again: I wrote interesting because these boards have rules about language used.

I like the Electoral College. I like living in a Republic with a transparent, but indirect election for President.

If you'd like to change the rules making it mandatory that electors vote for who their state has chosen to support - fine, but it is written in the Constitution that the individual states have jurisdiction over their electors.

Also - voter fraud is generally more likely in cites - therefore it is reasonable to say that city vote tallies are more likely to be skewed to a higher ratio than those in rural areas. The electoral college helps to protect people in suburban or rural states from larger states that can fudge their books more easily and with exponentially greater results.

Bush is a yale student

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I like the Electoral College. I like living in a Republic with a transparent, but indirect election for President.

If you'd like to change the rules making it mandatory that electors vote for who their state has chosen to support - fine, but it is written in the Constitution that the individual states have jurisdiction over their electors.

Also - voter fraud is generally more likely in cites - therefore it is reasonable to say that city vote tallies are more likely to be skewed to a higher ratio than those in rural areas. The electoral college helps to protect people in suburban or rural states from larger states that can fudge their books more easily and with exponentially greater results.

---

Putin already offered to help the US elections fair... So why are you worried about fraud?





SFTS> That says something about the education system in the US, no?

Where I went to university, a dumb:elephant: like him would have been kicked out long ago:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

You don’t have to do something to know it isn’t right.

The Electoral College prevents the wealthy politician the ability to pander to the heavily populated states to get the popular vote. A corrupt candidate could make promises to benefit 4 or 5 states and practically crap on the rest and still win the popular vote.

I was about to detail out an example but I don’t think I need to. :bow:

---

Your understanding is backwards.

This is actually what happens under the electorial college system. Larger states and medium sized are pandered to, while smaller states are most often ignored. The exception is when the race is tight, but still the more electorial votes a state has, the more important.

If the electorial college were removed, and each person's vote counted directly for their candidate state pandering would be obsolete. It wouldn't mater where your vote lived anymore. A state that leans 45 percent Democrat and 55 percent Republican would still be important to the Democrats.



One reason that the Electorial college system will remain in place is that it almost guarantees that third parties will not garner enough votes to affect the final outcome.




The electorial college system was the machination by Alexander Hamilton, who felt that the average person was to ignorant to cast the final vote for their leader. It is not what makes us a constitutional republic. It makes where you live more important than what you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoyoma1910

Your understanding is backwards.
If the electorial college were removed, and each person's vote counted directly for their candidate state pandering would be obsolete. It wouldn't mater where your vote lived anymore. A state that leans 45 percent Democrat and 55 percent Republican would still be important to the Democrats.

---

I agree completely. While Tuff points out the "worry" about fraud happening in the cities on a much grander scale (and I have no idea why this would be the case... rural and lesser populated areas have just as much temptation to inflate their voting numbers to increase the funding they receive, or their voice in government), I think cries of fraud possibility are dwarfed by how many people DON'T vote because they feel their vote does not count. And Tuff, I would think you would grasp this point more than anyone else here, being a Republican identifying as Independent but residing in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Your vote DOESN'T count except on local initiatives or your district's representation or state ballots.

You traditionally see quite low turnout numbers for American elections. And I think part of that is because so many people feel, rightly, that their vote doesn't count for anything. If it fails to turn the entire tide of their whole state, then it is worthless because the state's whole electoral count goes to the winner. So this actually PENALIZES PEOPLE IN LARGE STATES especially if they do not belong to the majority party in their state! Take California, as an example. There are probably MORE REPUBLICANS in California than in the whole state of Idaho, or Montana, states which traditionally vote Republican. But because California is predominantly Democratic, those however many million Republican votes count for absolutely nothing.

I don't really see why this is defended as a great thing, least of all by people who are in the minority political affiliation of their given state. And Tuff yes I know the electoral system is part of the Constitution and I am not proposing we use coupon scissors to cut out any part we don't like without going through the formal process of amendment. We're just expressing viewpoints on whether or not we feel this is a good thing, which serves the practice of democracy in the U.S.

I will go out on the partisan limb for a moment, and venture the theory that the reason the electoral system is defended by people who do not seem to benefit from it whatsoever in a direct sense, is because it keeps a neocon brand of conservativism viable. It is a philosophy which benefits so little of the population, and serves the interest of such an elite few, that in a pure popular vote on the issues themselves I believe it would be hopeless to run a neocon campaign. That is why factcheckers frequently find more misdirection and misleading in Republican campaigns (though this is, like any other criticism of Republican tactics, dismissed as media bias). And why Republican campaigns so frequently degenerate into complete irrelevance in terms of the issues, focusing on character assasination or mudslinging campaigns and negative attack ads. These are all strategies that help to keep an ideology which only serves the interest of a small minority of the population viable.

If we ditched the electoral college the campaigns would focus on firing up the base instead of appealing to independants. Sarah Palin fired up the base...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

If we ditched the electoral college the campaigns would focus on firing up the base instead of appealing to independants. Sarah Palin fired up the base...

---

There's certainly pros and cons for either system. I doubt anyone would deny that.

I don't like the electoral vote. I don't like the republican system in general, however, so I think I'll stay out of this for now. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Putin already offered to help the US elections fair... So why are you worried about fraud?





SFTS> That says something about the education system in the US, no?

Where I went to university, a dumb:elephant: like him would have been kicked out long ago:)

---

my. Bush is not dumb. The more you post the more I weep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

my. Bush is not dumb. The more you post the more I weep

---

That is true, he is anti-intellectual though.

Well the more I look at it the more I don’t think it matters, either the politician panders to the most populated states or the more populated cities. Gore almost won in 2000 by going after the populated cities, he only had 676 counties while Bush had 2,436 but Gore still had the popular vote.

The entire system is irritating me today after doing some reading. Gore won Michigan after winning Detroit and the same thing happened with our governor election. There are so many people in the big cities that it doesn’t matter what the rest of a state wants. Win 1 city in most states and you take the entire state, popular or electoral vote. It wouldn’t be an issue if we had a slam dunk leader run on either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Well the more I look at it the more I don’t think it matters, either the politician panders to the most populated states or the more populated cities. Gore almost won in 2000 by going after the populated cities, he only had 676 counties while Bush had 2,436 but Gore still had the popular vote.

The entire system is irritating me today after doing some reading. Gore won Michigan after winning Detroit and the same thing happened with our governor election. There are so many people in the big cities that it doesn’t matter what the rest of a state wants. Win 1 city in most states and you take the entire state, popular or electoral vote. It wouldn’t be an issue if we had a slam dunk leader run on either side.

---

Exactly.

I think the system reflects what the founders wanted for the country, it's just not implemented correctly at the state level. The Constitution does not specify how the electors are chosen, just how many the states get. It's up to the state legislature to decide how their share of votes is divvied up. If a state firmly in the grasp of one party, generally the legislature will want to help out on the national level by giving all votes to the majority winner.

In the original document, direct election was meant only for the House of Representatives (people power). The state legislature would chose the Senators (state power). The president was chosen via electors, which balances the power between large and small states (same balance as the Senate/House relationship). Unfortunately, they did not foresee the huge disparity in size between the Californias vs Montanas.

Since there is nothing (coming from a state's rights advocate) that can be done about the selection of electors, to better restore that balance I would say reduce the number of representatives. ~D

I think Yesdachi actually stumbled on the answer. One of the things the founding fathers were trying to prevent was Europe II. They didn't want 10-15 major population centers to control the destiny of their new country. They were farmers, they wanted the rural areas settled, and they knew nobody would move out ot the rural areas if they lived in constant fear that the masses in Philadelphia or Charleston would vote to tax them at 75%.

The electoral college serves as a force against urbanization. There's a reason a smaller percentage of Americans live in the major metro areas than they do in Europe or Asia (or Canada for that matter). The reason is, because we can.

If we went to direct election, the elections would follow the exact same pattern that television ratings systems do. 15 major urban areas make all the decisions for the rest of the country. While this is fine for things such as whether Big Brother will get another season or not, when deciding things like people's tax rates and the services provided by the state (in the federal sense), it's a bit disheartening.

We like having life out in the suburbs/rural area, and this would end in 30 years if we went to direct election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Well the more I look at it the more I don’t think it matters, either the politician panders to the most populated states or the more populated cities. Gore almost won in 2000 by going after the populated cities, he only had 676 counties while Bush had 2,436 but Gore still had the popular vote.

The entire system is irritating me today after doing some reading. Gore won Michigan after winning Detroit and the same thing happened with our governor election. There are so many people in the big cities that it doesn’t matter what the rest of a state wants. Win 1 city in most states and you take the entire state, popular or electoral vote. It wouldn’t be an issue if we had a slam dunk leader run on either side.

---

Why do you think communities with 248 residents and cities with 3,465,000 residents should have the same weight? And even with the electoral system, it is still far more cost-effective to "pander" to the big cities instead of visiting dozens or hundreds of small rural communities to acquire the same number of votes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Why do you think communities with 248 residents and cities with 3,465,000 residents should have the same weight? And even with the electoral system, it is still far more cost-effective to "pander" to the big cities instead of visiting dozens or hundreds of small rural communities to acquire the same number of votes.

---

I will use Michigan as an example again. Look at what a disaster Detroit is then look at the rest of the state particularly the west coast, it is not doing so bad. There are a lot of smart people, good schools/colleges, world class medical facilities, many philanthropists, successful businesses and there are more ISO certified companies and GREEN buildings in West Michigan than anywhere in the country but all the smart, good, responsible people throughout two-thirds of the state don’t outweigh the votes of the jobless morons who are living on top of themselves in filth and stupidity in 1 city. I am sure it is a similar situation in many states.

Direct democracy has many drawbacks, this is one, but I still can’t think of a better system.

Imagine what a difference it would make in elections if we could exclude the idiots with a quick 10 question test before the vote. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I will use Michigan as an example again. Look at what a disaster Detroit is then look at the rest of the state particularly the west coast, it is not doing so bad. There are a lot of smart people, good schools/colleges, world class medical facilities, many philanthropists, successful businesses and there are more ISO certified companies and GREEN buildings in West Michigan than anywhere in the country but all the smart, good, responsible people throughout two-thirds of the state don’t outweigh the votes of the jobless morons who are living on top of themselves in filth and stupidity in 1 city. I am sure it is a similar situation in many states.

Direct democracy has many drawbacks, this is one, but I still can’t think of a better system.

Imagine what a difference it would make in elections if we could exclude the idiots with a quick 10 question test before the vote. ~D

---

I would LOVE such a system. The problem is that ideological Republicans would insist "Is Abortion murder?" should be one of the 10 questions to disqualify people. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I would LOVE such a system. The problem is that ideological Republicans would insist "Is Abortion murder?" should be one of the 10 questions to disqualify people. ;)

---

Another problem would be Democrats insisting "Are gunz bAd1???" should be one of the ten questions.

Honestly, partisanship works both ways. Sometimes it gets aggravating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Another problem would be Democrats insisting "Are gunz bAd1???" should be one of the ten questions.

Honestly, partisanship works both ways. Sometimes it gets aggravating.

---

Good thing you aren't in the U.S. and thus U.S. partisanship is a non-issue for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Good thing you aren't in the U.S. and thus U.S. partisanship is a non-issue for you.

---

I get it on this forum. ~;) Anyways, partisanship here or wherever - it can range from sickening to strangely refreshing. Can't live with it, can't live without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I get it on this forum. ~;) Anyways, partisanship here or wherever - it can range from sickening to strangely refreshing. Can't live with it, can't live without it.

---

The difference between my point and yours was, "banning guns" is a boogeyman tactic used by the right and not a universal litmus of running for major office as a Dem. But being pro life IS a virtual litmus question for the Rep party, especially if they want to be President. So the examples were not parallel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I would LOVE such a system. The problem is that ideological Republicans would insist "Is Abortion murder?" should be one of the 10 questions to disqualify people. ;)

---

I think questions like “what color is red?” are sufficient enough to get rid of half the voters. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

I think questions like “what color is red?” are sufficient enough to get rid of half the voters. ~D

---

No no no.

"What were the 49th and 50th states?"

Sizzle! 20% of electorate gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Also - voter fraud is generally more likely in cites - therefore it is reasonable to say that city vote tallies are more likely to be skewed to a higher ratio than those in rural areas. The electoral college helps to protect people in suburban or rural states from larger states that can fudge their books more easily and with exponentially greater results.

---

Eh are you joking rural areas are way more prone to voter fraud everyone knows each other and people often know if somone is away for weekend they can then impersonate the voter the rural nature of the place often means the person looking after the ballots is in on it too.
It doesnt happenas much now I hope but its just as prevalent in a rural area as urban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Eh are you joking rural areas are way more prone to voter fraud everyone knows each other and people often know if somone is away for weekend they can then impersonate the voter the rural nature of the place often means the person looking after the ballots is in on it too.
It doesnt happenas much now I hope but its just as prevalent in a rural area as urban.

---

Well I guess we'd need to compare stats, but they are lacking. Was ACORN heavily operative in rural areas? I'd imagine not, because there weren't as many voters to impersonate. What i'm saying is that, although it is odd, cities have a nameless aspect. If someone came into a metropolitan voting office, how likely is it that you would know everyone and not be swamped by the sheer number of people you didn't know? There is nowhere near the level of accountability in cities. I can't remember the last time I went into a voting office and the woman didn't know my family and mention how they had just come in to vote befroe I got there.

Does anybody have any stats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Well I guess we'd need to compare stats, but they are lacking. Was ACORN heavily operative in rural areas? I'd imagine not, because there weren't as many voters to impersonate. What i'm saying is that, although it is odd, cities have a nameless aspect. If someone came into a metropolitan voting office, how likely is it that you would know everyone and not be swamped by the sheer number of people you didn't know? There is nowhere near the level of accountability in cities. I can't remember the last time I went into a voting office and the woman didn't know my family and mention how they had just come in to vote befroe I got there.

Does anybody have any stats?

---

I love these claims of voter fraud from concerned Republicans. Like we don't have such lovely gems as the Help America Vote (Republican) Act and ongoing efforts to limit voter turnout, purge new voter registrations, etc. Not to mention the attempts to get required national photo ID and all sorts of other methods basically meant to just inconvenience or increase the expense of the process of getting registered, which will overwhelmingly discourage the poor and minorities from voting. Not likely Republican voters.