| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
So in this election cycle we have seen both major parties playing dirty tricks behind the scenes, not to give an advantage over their opposition, but to sway the results of the choice of the people who are on their side. We are seeing evidence of known and widespread voter fraud. We have seen evidence of a candidate being given debate questions before the debate, by members of the "media". It's more clear than ever that the media, who is charged with being an honest and fair moderator in the election process, can't even keep from showing an obvious bias in the debates themselves, right to the point of actively engaging in being a party in the debate. Worst of all, being proven wrong on point of fact when engaging in debate, when they should simply be monitors. We have major scandals being uncovered, such as the IRS being weaponized against their political enemies, and not only does it not get prosecuted, but we find that it is still actively happening. So I'm asking both sides here... Are you satisfied with this kind of electoral process? If you are, will you be when your side is being oppressed? Is this really the tin pot democracy that you wish to live in? Do you thing that any sort of fair result can come from such a compromised process? | ||
| Thumper74 |
I saw 'electrical process' and now I'm disappointed. The issue I've had since I could vote, is that the candidates are so far removed from the normal Joe, that they have NO idea what it's like to be you or I and the struggles we deal with. | ||
| Pwnzor |
No. | ||
| Aesquire |
Nope. I'm still predicting Donald being assassinated. With Russia in full "We will burn you to ash" mode & the Chinese ready to sink our Pacific fleet with dedicated anti-carrier group ballistic nukes, plus the deliberate importation of thousands of Jihadi ( all set up by or direct actions of, the Obama regime ) actually having an election this year is doubtful. It's not paranoia when the UN troops are actually here. And at this point I don't trust the system to deliver an accurate result. And I point out that while George Bush actually did win the election ( independent newspaper recounts verified ) Al Franken did not and Alan West did. And it doesn't matter. I'm mad as hell..... oh wait, that one was used already. | ||
| Mnscrounger |
We as a nation disagree every other year on who to vote for. Then the votes are cast, victory and concession speeches made, and we peacefully move on. Rarely does one hear of an entire election being "fixed". For the most part, we collectively believe in the basic integrity of the electoral system. But more and more often, whole classes of people are refusing to accept the outcome, and as more reports of fraud are raised ( on either side) our confidence in the very process is being eroded. I fear if we do not establish solid voter ID laws to ensure the integrity of our elections, eventually our elections could degrade to the point of some third world nations, where one or more groups simply refuse to accept the outcome, and believe the only recourse to correct this injustice is through violence. I don't want a single eligible voter "disenfranchised". I can write in Mickey Mouse if I want, because its my right. I value it to the point I will defend my ideological opponents rights. But if my rights are being devalued by voter fraud, and electoral hijinks , IMHO it is the equivalent in scale to an attack by foreign agents on our security as a nation. A purple thumb (or other digit if missing)and/or fingerprint, taken at the polls, disenfranchises no one. A digital photograph at the time of polling, at least guarantees the likelihood that the same person is voting next year. (and they stop voting in this world upon passing on to the next.) It disenfranchises no one either. And if by law (under Obamacare) everyone must have a health plan, Health information like it or not is directly tied to our Social Security Number. ( a good place to determine voter eligibility) why by God can't we use that plan member card or other ID to establish a voter ID for those people voter ID opponents claim have absolutely no practical way to establish ID. I've been told by voter ID opponents that they exist, but so far evidence suggests they exist only hypothetically. | ||
| Aesquire |
...but so far evidence suggests they exist only hypothetically. Actually over 20 million. WELL over 20 million criminal trespassers and that's not counting the ones deliberately imported by Obama in the last few years. THEY have ID. One "group" the DNC insists has no ID are the Old Folk. Like it's even possible to live in this country for 60 years and not register to vote or have ANY identification. That said, I do know people, ostensible adults, who never got a drivers licence. But every one votes. Most are semi-radical leftists. And honestly, if you haven't given a Damn about your Republic for many years, I don't WANT you to vote. Leftists always think in Groups. The Individual Citizen has no importance. It's hate & Envy between Groups that gives Evil Power. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I was wondering today what would happen if each voter could cast two votes. So you vote for your first choice, and then vote for a second choice. Whoever has the most votes at the end of the election wins. The eventually elected leader has to serve all the people, not just the ones that elected them. This would of course force everyone to the middle and empower credible moderates. But when we have such a split country, that feels kind of attractive. | ||
| Mnscrounger |
Aesquire Those people aren't eligible to (legally) vote. I'm talking about the legally eligible voters who claim ID laws somehow disenfranchise them. (But I think you knew what I meant, its just hard to hear sarcasm through text. As far as a runoff vote on the same ballot, I doubt election judges are the ideal people I want "interpreting" my choice placement. If it's too close to call, then a tightly controlled verified election, with eligibility ID confirmation should remove any doubt, and ONE vote can make a difference. | ||
| Airbozo |
Reep, That election method is in place in several places in the US for local candidates. It _seems_ to work very well but time will tell. I would fully support it for federal level elections. Might just make it a competitive race not full of maroons. | ||
| Aesquire |
Mnscrounger, Yeah, sarcasm, but true, the D's have been giving the vote to illegals by the state load. They get registered at the DMV, and there is great effort to get them to vote. And as pointed out by everyone not an idiot or liar, it's unlikely there are more than a few thousand people with no ID at all that actually want to vote and could not if there were ID requirements. But let's ignore that just like we should ignore the shills that say requiring ID is an undue burden. So instead, let's go with the classic approach. ID's being required to live is a police state thing. Screw that. No ID to vote. But you get the purple finger. So you can't vote twice. Or a mark on the fore head. That'll get the Number Of The Beast folk going. How to deal with absentee ballots is another puzzle. We WANT the folk in the Military to vote, and their vote to count. There has been last election a lot of military overseas and domestic that had that stolen. We also don't want massive fraud. And we've got that today. So we could easily solve half the problem, all the "under achiever" voters who are bused from polling place to place and fed cheap wine on the trip. Purple ink. The other half? I'll take suggestions. |
