BF2S Forums Voter fraud; how it works and why.

Pierre wrote:

Bollocks. Articles like in this thread clearly indicate that the Government is not capable - or not willing - to guarantee the absolute right of every single citizen to be able to vote.  It is the duty of the Government - be it local, state or federal - to guarantee that every citizen is able to register himself in a way that no one disputes his registration. Clearly, that's not the case.

Furthermore, it is the duty of the Government - be it local, state or federal, although I'd prefer federal - to guarantee that all votes are casted the same way and in an indisputable way, so that recounts are not necessary. Remember Florida 2000? Tell me why both candidates have thousands lawyers standing by at election day?

You are missing a basic component/philosophy of American government: The States have the bulk of the power, not the federal government. In fact, the Constitution is very unambiguous about that. The only powers the Federal government has are those expressly given it in the Constitution and its Amendments. All others belong to the States. Ergo, the States have the leeway to run elections how they choose. And they do just that. It only gets elevated beyond the State when it gets contested by someone.

The bottomline is that everyone who chooses to exercise their right to vote must follow defined rules to do so. They are neither complicated nor difficult to follow. As such, every citizen who is eligible to vote can register themselves and vote. It's quite simple.

In some instances, the methods for registering and verifying (or not verifying, as the case may be) are flawed. But it is up to the individual states to address those issues internally--not for the Feds to step in and mandate it. Federal elections occur far less often than state and local elections/referenda.

You'll never get away from a need for recounts, so long as you have close elections. It's called double-checking, and I have no problems with it.

BTW, are you planning on voting in an American election any time soon? No? Kthen.

Pierre wrote:

As long as the US don't follow these rules, they're at the same level as Zimbabwe.

Hyperbole ftl.

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And what's wrong with states apportioning their electoral votes according to the popular vote in each district?

Nothing's wrong there, unless one would like to change the rules to steal an election.

One can't change the rules after the votes have been cast (or even for a period before voting commences). Hence one can't "steal an election". What the hell are you on about here?

FEOS wrote:

You are missing a basic component/philosophy of American government: The States have the bulk of the power, not the federal government. In fact, the Constitution is very unambiguous about that. The only powers the Federal government has are those expressly given it in the Constitution and its Amendments. All others belong to the States. Ergo, the States have the leeway to run elections how they choose. And they do just that. It only gets elevated beyond the State when it gets contested by someone.

The bottomline is that everyone who chooses to exercise their right to vote must follow defined rules to do so. They are neither complicated nor difficult to follow. As such, every citizen who is eligible to vote can register themselves and vote. It's quite simple.

In some instances, the methods for registering and verifying (or not verifying, as the case may be) are flawed. But it is up to the individual states to address those issues internally--not for the Feds to step in and mandate it. Federal elections occur far less often than state and local elections/referenda.

You'll never get away from a need for recounts, so long as you have close elections. It's called double-checking, and I have no problems with it.

Fair enough. But my motion stands, it doesn't matter who is in charge of the voting system, if you can't make it flawless, then change it. Even if you only have a few federal elections.

FEOS wrote:

BTW, are you planning on voting in an American election any time soon? No? Kthen.

Seeing what a mess you people made of the last 2 electons, I'd like to. And I'm not only talking about electing GWB.

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

As long as the US don't follow these rules, they're at the same level as Zimbabwe.

Hyperbole ftl.

It's the closest to an F15 I can get

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And what's wrong with states apportioning their electoral votes according to the popular vote in each district?

Nothing's wrong there, unless one would like to change the rules to steal an election.

One can't change the rules after the votes have been cast (or even for a period before voting commences). Hence one can't "steal an election". What the hell are you on about here?

See my post above: Paul Singer

Paul Singer made news in September when he admitted to providing all of the funds ($175,000) to put a referendum on the California ballot to divide the state's 55 Electors according to Congressional Districts, which would give the GOP 20 Electors that would otherwise go to the Democrat - roughly the size of Ohio or Pennsylvania. When Singer's role was exposed, the staff all quit and the effort went on hold - presumably until Singer finds a less-traceable way to launder his money.

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

Fair enough. But my motion stands, it doesn't matter who is in charge of the voting system, if you can't make it flawless, then change it. Even if you only have a few federal elections.

So European elections are "flawless"? C'mon now...

You do know Europe is not a country, don't you? Please tell me you do . . .

FEOS wrote:

And again...that wouldn't affect the Nov Presidential election in any way, shape, or form. If it passed (which isn't a bad idea, btw), it wouldn't take effect until the NEXT Presidential election. So no "stealing" of any election there.

You still haven't answered the question of what is wrong with universal proportional distribution of electoral votes.

I didn't say this will affect the coming election, I said it could have, if passed. I used it as an example of the need for a universal federal voting system in the US: one man = one vote, and is accounted for the same way.

Pierre wrote:

You do know Europe is not a country, don't you? Please tell me you do . . .

...yet.  Give it a couple hundred years.  After all, the US was originally a grouping of independant states with a shared currency and a 'federal' (as in 'federation' or 'confederation') government to oversee relations between those states.  Kind of like the EU is now...

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

You do know Europe is not a country, don't you? Please tell me you do . . .

Now you're just being pedantic.

Nothing pedantic about it. You would be surprised how many times people on this forum act like they are convinced that Europe is one country, just like the US. But Europe isn't, it's not a federation of countries, we don't elect the members of the EU Commission, we only elect the local members of the EU parliament, and I believe it's coming up in 2009 (we could do a thread about it).

FEOS wrote:

And way to avoid the question.

Not at all...

Pierre wrote:

Fair enough. But my motion stands, it doesn't matter who is in charge of the voting system, if you can't make it flawless, then change it. Even if you only have a few federal elections.

In his reply FEOS wrote:

So European elections are "flawless"? C'mon now...

We were talking US elections, not European elections.

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

I didn't say this will affect the coming election, I said it could have, if passed. I used it as an example of the need for a universal federal voting system in the US: one man = one vote, and is accounted for the same way.

It could have affected the election, but it wouldn't have resulted in "stealing" it, now would it? Stealing means something was done illegally. If the law were passed, the electoral vote distribution would have been in accordance with the law, just as it is in two other states, btw.

The (oh so objective ) blogger carefully avoids those troublesome facts, though.

One person DOES equal one vote in this country. It is accounted for in exactly that way. If your real problem is with the electoral college, then say so. That is a different debate.

I don't have a problem with the way votes are accounted for, proportional or any other way, that's up to the people of the US, by which I mean its lawmakers, to decide. That's the way the Constitution works. So if the Constitution declared that all states can individually decide how the votes of their citizens are accounted for, it's fine by me.

What I'm saying is that this means that rules in one state may differ from rules in another state, which means that the way votes are accounted for are not the same in very state. Which means that all people / votes are not equal.

Last edited by Pierre (2008-11-04 02:51:15)

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

You do know Europe is not a country, don't you? Please tell me you do . . .

Now you're just being pedantic.

Nothing pedantic about it. You would be surprised how many times people on this forum act like they are convinced that Europe is one country, just like the US. But Europe isn't, it's not a federation of countries, we don't elect the members of the EU Commission, we only elect the local members of the EU parliament, and I believe it's coming up in 2009 (we could do a thread about it).

Well I'm not one of them and to say that instead of addressing the question was pedantic.

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And way to avoid the question.

Not at all...

Pierre wrote:

Fair enough. But my motion stands, it doesn't matter who is in charge of the voting system, if you can't make it flawless, then change it. Even if you only have a few federal elections.

In his reply FEOS wrote:

So European elections are "flawless"? C'mon now...

We were talking US elections, not European elections.

And I asked about elections in Europe, since that's where you're from (realizing you're from an individual country, of course). You dodged the question by making a remark about Europe not being a single country instead of answering the question that was posed. And you still dodge it.

Pierre wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Pierre wrote:

I didn't say this will affect the coming election, I said it could have, if passed. I used it as an example of the need for a universal federal voting system in the US: one man = one vote, and is accounted for the same way.

It could have affected the election, but it wouldn't have resulted in "stealing" it, now would it? Stealing means something was done illegally. If the law were passed, the electoral vote distribution would have been in accordance with the law, just as it is in two other states, btw.

The (oh so objective ) blogger carefully avoids those troublesome facts, though.

One person DOES equal one vote in this country. It is accounted for in exactly that way. If your real problem is with the electoral college, then say so. That is a different debate.

I don't have a problem with the way votes are accounted for, proportional or any other way, that's up to the people of the US, by which I mean its lawmakers, to decide. That's the way the Constitution works. So if the Constitution declared that all states can individually decide how the votes of their citizens are accounted for, it's fine by me.

But that's what the Constitution says: The power to regulate election processes within the states belongs exclusively to the states. So I guess it's fine by you, then.

Pierre wrote:

What I'm saying is that this means that rules in one state may differ from rules in another state, which means that the way votes are accounted for are not the same in very state. Which means that all people / votes are not equal.

Yes, they are. There is a national election commission that ensures that all people/votes are treated equally. The accounting of individual votes is no different in each state than anywhere else: they are counted and the results compiled by Congressional district. The only difference is whether the electoral votes are proportionately distributed or "all in" for the overall winner in the state.