US Election: 2016
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 13,025
- Points
- 1,140
SeaKingTacco said:
Ah the new way of campaigning....harassment, outright lies and bullying. Seems like it hasn't changed much.
- Reaction score
- 1,460
- Points
- 1,090
I think what's changed is the need to absolutely incinerate those you disagree with. It's not enough to say I disagree, and here's why. We have folks being fired from work just for supporting one or the other candidates. People mount social media campaigns to turn others into pariahs in their own communities.
- Reaction score
- 2,722
- Points
- 1,260
That. Right. There.ModlrMike said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
Do you have a source for that? That'd be an interesting read. My search was inconclusive, so if you had an article you could link I'd love to take a look.Jarnhamar said:
- Reaction score
- 2,722
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting site (at least they don't say Sandy Hook didn't really happen - even if they still offer up links to sites that do) - thanks for sharing.Jarnhamar said:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,324
- Points
- 1,040
>Which is the larger, more dangerous problem for the US electoral system: voter fraud, voter supression, partisan control of the state election board or commission, or gerrymandering.
None of the above. Gerrymandering, while being bipartisan, also has some sources of support (eg. to create majority black districts). To criticize partisanship in the boards presupposes that they could be made non-partisan, an assumption which is voided by the recent rot in the IRS - the aspiration of an apolitical civil service is being set aside for political expediency (and not just in the US). "Voter suppression" is a spin phrase for "electoral integrity" among those who wish for there to be less of the latter. And actual voter fraud is scattershot - only occasionally do some of the forms of fraud raise much of a stir.
The most dangerous problem for the US - or any - electoral system is the loss of perception of fairness. The most dangerous problem for the US is the insufficient commitment of the Democratic party to maintaining the appearance of propriety and minimizing the opportunities in which fraud might be possible.
What people refer to as "democracy" is really a bunch of institutions and practices which must credibly hold public trust (faith). When the belief that those operate fairly corrodes and credibility is lost, it becomes increasingly difficult to effectively combat genuine rumours and imaginings, or to restore civil and productive discourse. The shit is hard to put back into the horse.
"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy
None of the above. Gerrymandering, while being bipartisan, also has some sources of support (eg. to create majority black districts). To criticize partisanship in the boards presupposes that they could be made non-partisan, an assumption which is voided by the recent rot in the IRS - the aspiration of an apolitical civil service is being set aside for political expediency (and not just in the US). "Voter suppression" is a spin phrase for "electoral integrity" among those who wish for there to be less of the latter. And actual voter fraud is scattershot - only occasionally do some of the forms of fraud raise much of a stir.
The most dangerous problem for the US - or any - electoral system is the loss of perception of fairness. The most dangerous problem for the US is the insufficient commitment of the Democratic party to maintaining the appearance of propriety and minimizing the opportunities in which fraud might be possible.
What people refer to as "democracy" is really a bunch of institutions and practices which must credibly hold public trust (faith). When the belief that those operate fairly corrodes and credibility is lost, it becomes increasingly difficult to effectively combat genuine rumours and imaginings, or to restore civil and productive discourse. The shit is hard to put back into the horse.
"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,999
- Points
- 1,160
For more of your reading pleasure.milnews.ca said:
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/787414809264398336
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsk3j2gKu6s
http://rightedition.com/2016/10/17/philip-defranco-top-youtubers-offered-money-endorse-hillary-clinton/
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
milnews.ca said:
US elections are organized and run at the state level, which means voting regulations and rules vary from state to state.
The Federal Election Commission only oversees the campaign funding to endure that the rules are followed, and they provide public funding if a candidate so chooses to use public funding.
http://www.fec.gov/about.shtml
Most, if not all states have partisan elections boards or commissions, which is overseen by the state Secretary of State who is an elected official, who typically is a member of the party in power in the state legislature. Add to that there are also local election boards that report to the state boards.
So having a nation wide conspiracy to steal an election by manipulating the vote is an almost impossible prospect. The shear numbers of people that would have to be involved would preclude it being viable or remain secret.
- Reaction score
- 52
- Points
- 330
Just to be the guy who questions everything ;D, considering that a few and in my understanding that would be very few battleground states can swing the election, you wouldn't need a nation wide conspiracy. You'd just need to make sure those few places come up with the right results. That would be a lot more manageable, and easier to keep under the radar, especially if the MSM is... how shall I put this... disinterested in pursuing matters...cupper said:
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,833
- Points
- 1,160
cupper said:
I think in about three quarters of the states (35) they are directly elected while in the remainder they are appointed by either the governor (9) or the legislature (3). (3 states don't have one)
The numbers currently favour the Republicans.(27 to 20)
https://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_(state_executive_office)
:cheers:
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
cupper said:
Each state has an official responsible for elections - the Secretary of State.The voting requirements are the same for each state.Many states require a picture ID to vote,curiously the democrats have opposed this as being racist.However,to cash a check you have to have your drivers license.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Voting requirements are the same, but the actual means and methods of voting (paper ballot and optical scanner, computer voting machine, punch card ballot, etc), voting times and locations, and so on differ state by state.
The recent court decision on rules set out in North Carolina showed definitively that there was an active campaign to surpress minority votes by setting rules that would result in just that. Republican lawmakers requested voter data based on racial demographics to develop the package of legislation involving voter ID, ammendments to early voting and other changes to the voting rules that dispropotionately effected African Americans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/?tid=a_inl
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html
The recent court decision on rules set out in North Carolina showed definitively that there was an active campaign to surpress minority votes by setting rules that would result in just that. Republican lawmakers requested voter data based on racial demographics to develop the package of legislation involving voter ID, ammendments to early voting and other changes to the voting rules that dispropotionately effected African Americans.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/?tid=a_inl
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html
- Reaction score
- 63
- Points
- 530
To avoid fraud you have to prove who you are.This gets in the way of democrat efforts to gin up voter fraud.These court battles are designed to undermine voter registration and identification.I walk into my polling place,show my drivers license and the poll worker finds my name on the roll and then I get to cast my vote.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,324
- Points
- 1,040
>So having a nation wide conspiracy to steal an election by manipulating the vote is an almost impossible prospect.
Which is why it's meaningless to raise it as either a boogeyman, or to dismiss fears of vote fraud ("successful national vote fraud is impossible; therefore, all successful vote fraud is impossible"). But wherever an election might be decided by a few hundred votes (eg. FL, 2000), productive vote fraud - before or after polls close - is viable. And note that it's the viability that matters most - not whether anyone actually capitalizes on it.
And even if you dismiss the viability of productive/successful vote fraud, there is still the incontrovertible taint of any fraud, regardless of its effect.
When someone raises concerns about electoral integrity, neither "we've studied it, and found nothing significant" nor "it doesn't exist, we assure you" is an acceptable response. The only acceptable response is "we'll button that down right now".
All that is required is one day on which polls are open for a reasonable length of time - say, 12 hours - with an opportunity for advance/absentee voting only for people who can prove they will be unable to vote in person at their designated polling station on voting day. Voting rolls should be regularly and frequently cleansed. Proof of identity should be required (and the allowable identity should not be difficult to obtain - if necessary, picture voter ID registration cards should be provided at public expense).
Which is why it's meaningless to raise it as either a boogeyman, or to dismiss fears of vote fraud ("successful national vote fraud is impossible; therefore, all successful vote fraud is impossible"). But wherever an election might be decided by a few hundred votes (eg. FL, 2000), productive vote fraud - before or after polls close - is viable. And note that it's the viability that matters most - not whether anyone actually capitalizes on it.
And even if you dismiss the viability of productive/successful vote fraud, there is still the incontrovertible taint of any fraud, regardless of its effect.
When someone raises concerns about electoral integrity, neither "we've studied it, and found nothing significant" nor "it doesn't exist, we assure you" is an acceptable response. The only acceptable response is "we'll button that down right now".
All that is required is one day on which polls are open for a reasonable length of time - say, 12 hours - with an opportunity for advance/absentee voting only for people who can prove they will be unable to vote in person at their designated polling station on voting day. Voting rolls should be regularly and frequently cleansed. Proof of identity should be required (and the allowable identity should not be difficult to obtain - if necessary, picture voter ID registration cards should be provided at public expense).
- Reaction score
- 2,722
- Points
- 1,260
Zackly - as it says @ the end ...Jed said:
Similar threads
