“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

John Adams

..

This...

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
..

To me the problem is that the system is becoming increasingly corrupt to the point that voting really doesn't matter. There will be a day when voting is really just an illusion and the outcome is already predetermined by the corrupt.

The process generally isn't the problem, it's the corruption.

What we are all about to witness in PA will really bring this question to the surface later this week.

quote:

Originally posted by Dakor:
What I want to know is which law enforcement agency is responsible for making sure that official party observers/auditors are allowed in the voting areas (like the disgrace that’s happening in Philly) and that makes certain no voter intimidation occurs? Local police, Staties, Feds?

It is my understanding that Sheriffs have that duty.

For my county, only county vetted and approved observers are allowed inside. They must present ID and County letter to Judge of elections. They must remain apart from voters as to not intimidate or sway. I told them up front, no shenanigans or I'll be calling for a sheriff for their removal.
My little district had eight observers off and on throughout the day. Four stayed all day; two inside, two outside.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Any chance the 14th/15th can be used to argue federal enforcement of standards for voting?

Not to determine the method established by the state legislature, but the enforcement of said method to ensure security and no undue influence.

The 14th and 15th mean the states can't discriminate in voting, but they don't mandate standards and methods, generally.

dumb question: a given state has X electoral college votes. but if the state popular vote is divided, let's say 70-30, why wouldn't 30% of X be provided to a candidate with 70% of X being provided to the other candidate rather than all of X being provided to the other candidate?

It's still problematic that there is such a diversity of methods and processes from state to state. There's no good reason for us to still be waiting on results from Pennsylvania and other states. If their system can't keep up with everyone else, they should have to change it and bring it in line with reasonable expectations.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
dumb question: a given state has X electoral college votes. but if the state popular vote is divided, let's say 70-30, why wouldn't 30% of X be provided to a candidate with 70% of X being provided to the other candidate rather than all of X being provided to the other candidate?

The two party system would hate that. What if a third party candidate got a significant part of the vote? But it could be done that way.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
dumb question: a given state has X electoral college votes. but if the state popular vote is divided, let's say 70-30, why wouldn't 30% of X be provided to a candidate with 70% of X being provided to the other candidate rather than all of X being provided to the other candidate?

The two party system would hate that. What if a third party candidate got a significant part of the vote? But it could be done that way.

So nothing currently prohibits this? And we could refine the rule: a candidate must get at least 25% of the popular vote before any electoral votes get allocated. But seems like a lot of the current electoral college votes don't adequately reflect the interests of the state. For a state that only has 4 or 5 total electoral votes, that's one thing. A state that has 30-60 votes, those percentages make a difference at the national level that should be represented. Other states may disagree, but for my state, I think all to one candidate and ignoring a significant part of the state's population for the contrary is a disservice. Especially since the current incumbent side is behaving so irrationally.

Maybe that's my biggest complaint - there is no check and balance for irrationality and intelligence in the whole voting process.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
dumb question: a given state has X electoral college votes. but if the state popular vote is divided, let's say 70-30, why wouldn't 30% of X be provided to a candidate with 70% of X being provided to the other candidate rather than all of X being provided to the other candidate?

Two observations. First, any state that wants to can do it that way. Currently 2 states do "share" their Electoral votes: ME and NE. Second, doing that in essence removes one function of the Electoral College, which was to make election of the President a "state" function. It would just be a more granular version of the popular vote. The Electoral College is the only thing that keeps just a few large cities from always choosing the President. If you live in Kansas, would you want the President always being chosen by Los Angeles and NYC?

I understand that states with a large number of Electors going "winner take all" does represent a potential of disenfranchising a significant number of their voters. Perhaps the problem is that we've allowed states get into that situation. I think any state that has a population great enough to have more than 1/10 of the total Electors should have to undergo a process of being divided into 2 or more states. (Currently, only California meets that criterion, but some others are approaching it.)

The process used in Maine and Nebraska is another potential solution: they have separated out their large cities as separate zones and allocated an Elector to that zone, with the rest of the state controlling the remaining Electors.

flashguy

Yea. I understand. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem right that all of the votes from my state goes to one candidate when more than 30% of the votes went to the other candidate. And that’s assuming no fraud. It’s like we don’t count in state government nor federal government. We have no voice. Especially when the majority are rabid mentally ill.

It's hard for me to imagine a routine function of a business that is so poorly run as some states/cities run this routine function of public administration.

For example, public companies know every year there will be an audit. These happen routinely, are budgeted and planned for, and just happen. You would think an elected body would know there's going to be elections every two years, and would set things up so they 'just happen' too.

How in the hell, with almost 24 hours after the last voter has left the premises, in the age of the Internet, could any state or county still be counting? Answer: they can't be. Unless they are doing it on their fingers and toes.

I admit I'd like to see some investment in developing some turnkey 'precinct operating kits' or some such on the Federal level. Not mandatory, but a sort of amalgamation of best-practice hardware, software, booths, forms etc. Let the states/counties make their own decisions, but have a well-thought-out, debugged, modern system ready for implementation.

Maybe three levels of kits, basic, advanced, and legendary?

Basic would be forms and pencils and scanners linked via the net to tallying computers at the state and at the local facility. Numbers would be updated with each scan and available in milliseconds rather than days/hours.

Advanced would be touch screen (with paper printout confirmations), linked as per above, but also with forms and pencils and scanners provided, in case of touch screen failure.

Legendary would just pick the most qualified Republican candidate and save everyone time. Just kidding. Two levels would probably be enough.

Oh, and remote cameras covering every square inch of the facilities other than the voting booths, recordings to be archived remotely, and live streaming URLs provided automatically for any interested citizen to be able to access in real time.

The one thing we do NOT need in vote administration is privacy for the vote-handlers. For voters, yes. Vote handlers should be in full public view from when they pull into the parking lot till they get in the car to go home.

I’d like to see the electoral college go by way of congressional district with the 2 senator votes the bonus to who wins that state.

Also a national standard has to be made. And if it’s voting only on Election Day, in person, after showing ID and getting a purple ink on your finder with absentee ballots for military or other extreme reason. And only when you solicit an absentee ballot. This mass mailing of ballots to everybody is absolutely BS

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
I wonder how this "compact" (electoral votes to go to the popular vote winner) between several states holds up under legal scrutiny. An individual state can, I suppose, but collusion between states?

If Trump does win the popular vote, it will suck to be these states. I hope so. Maybe they'll think twice about manipulating the Electoral College to engineer a specific outcome.

My understanding is that the Compact does not go into effect until enough states to comprise 270 or more Electoral votes join it. I don't think that threshold has been reached. (And there is also a lawsuit against it, based on other provisions of the Constitution.)

flashguy

The compact may be unconstitutional because it requires any state that's part of the pact to vote a specific way. It can't be challenged until it's enacted into law so we'll have to wait until then to find out.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Yea. I understand. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem right that all of the votes from my state goes to one candidate when more than 30% of the votes went to the other candidate. And that’s assuming no fraud. It’s like we don’t count in state government nor federal government. We have no voice. Especially when the majority are rabid mentally ill.

That's a slippery slope argument that leads right to a popular vote. If you are going to divide the electoral votes precisely along the popular vote then why bother with the electoral college?

The PA supreme court set the mail in rules. That power is supposed to reside in the legislature.?? Challenge

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I'm rather agnostic to process.

To me the problem is that the system is becoming increasingly corrupt to the point that voting really doesn't matter. There will be a day when voting is really just an illusion and the outcome is already predetermined by the corrupt.

The process generally isn't the problem, it's the corruption.

I'm with you.

If Trump got elected in 2016 on nothing but spit, how is this election this close??

You've got blacks in Chicago being vocal about supporting Trump.

You have LGBTQ people in San Francisco holding rallies for Trump in San Francisco.

You have people in liberal Beverly Hills / Hollywood holding rallies for Trump.

The people who voted for Trump sure got what they wanted.

We are a republic ( not a democracy ) so each state is sort of like France, Germany and etc.
So each state hold an election and the the people of that state's selection then votes their state's
viewpoint.
Poli Viejo

Like others, I think federalism is ultimately the best way to manage the country

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I'm rather agnostic to process.

To me the problem is that the system is becoming increasingly corrupt to the point that voting really doesn't matter. There will be a day when voting is really just an illusion and the outcome is already predetermined by the corrupt.

The process generally isn't the problem, it's the corruption.

This is what I'd like to see the federal government address. Since it's federal, it would have to be when election fraud is carried out across state lines. I'd like to see one of the categories of election fraud carry penalties that are equal to sedition. In 18 USC 2384, here are the penalties for sedition:

quote:

they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I was shocked earlier this year when Project Veritas released the MN video and discovered the election fraud penalties were slaps on the wrist.

It's not laws, regulations, or even the constitution that's at fault. Corrupt people are at work subverting the system. All the laws in the world won't stop a crook.