You don't need to brag about how you figured it out. Just be content with your own success.
Should the Presidential election be changed?
- Thread starter bob99
- Start date
bob99
Well-known member
Ok. Solid answer. 2000 the hanging chad election. Al Gore loses Florida by 537 votes. A state who's Governor was the brother of the winning candidate. I feel that it was still a fair and legal election but there are some to this very day who don't. There have been some on the Left that claimed the 2016 election was fraudulent for the last 4 years and have never accepted the results. Now we have some on the Right who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent and will never accept the results. The main thing that has changed is the response to unlawful behavior. The burning and looting during the spring and summer with no proper response to it just encouraged more unlawful behavior. Thus the assault on the Capitol. Now there is fear of a non-peaceful change on power on January 20th. Will questioning individual states rights become the new norm? If members of the same party question their own validity in handling the election what is the answer? There are people here on Yappi who have questioned the last two elections. I don't consider them part of the lunatic fringe. It is the lunatic fringe that I worry about. Anitfa, QAnon, self proclaimed militia, BLM radicals, White Supremacist and the far gone people of the far left and the far right. I am not advocating a total Federal control of the election. Just a simplified election that is held for the Presidential election and the Presidential election only. Have the Presidential held on a day with that being the only issue on the ballot. Have the same ballot in all the nation. Have the votes being cast in the same manners everywhere. Have the vote counted in the same manner everywhere. Have the same requirements to be a qualified voter everywhere. Have the same rules and procedures to observe the voting and counting of the votes. If some people cannot trust members of their own party to handle these elections than there must be a better way. I think the majority of the people have accepted the results now and in the past. It is the lunatic fringe that is the problem and has become emboldened to act upon it.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
If it is Federal drop the the Electoral College completely. Dems would have lost one election since 1998 and we would have 7 Dem Scotus judges as the people of the country are heard.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
The President and the GOP wanted that uncertainty.
bob99
Well-known member
Who said anything about dropping the Electoral College? Or is that what you are proposing? I personally think that would be going to far and would cause a greater division between rural and urban citizens and larger and less populated states.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
Not my fault it's a stupid system.
Too simplistic. If every voter and every vote counted, we can not say for certain how and where campaigns would be run differently, how many currently disenfranchised citizens living in deep red or blue states would have participated, or what the results would have been. Only then would participation rates reflect our true (rather than embarrassing) level of patriotism and support for US democracy.
As others have explained very plainly above - the EC was/is a form of ring wing suppression and/or disenfranchisement. It was then, it is now.
Happygoluckky
Well-known member
If you are going with a Federal election run a federal election....there is no need for an electoral college. You are correct it would minimize the votes of rural voters and reflect the true voice of US citizens, which is why the GOP is deeply against it. They cannot win elections with their policies if all Americans vote and their votes are equal.
Much more importantly, as they have just proven, is their desire to give themselves the ability to subvert our election process by manipulating and/or pressuring electors, and other states' electors too. It is MUCH easier to overturn elections that way. As it stands today, and more apparent than ever, the EC system is critically vulnerable to "hack". They just showed their hand. Believe them.
Just think. If the republican (as potus emphasized in his phone call) GA governor or SOS was just a little more Trumpy, and a little less honorable, as so many other pub sycophants, where we would be right now??? I don't even want to imagine. But we are THAT close folks.
Yappi
Go Buckeyes
Personally, I think we should get rid of the electoral college the same time we get rid of Congress.
Just get rid of all representation. Have everything voted on by everyone all the time. Why do we need representatives? Create one national portal and one state portal where we can vote on any pending legislation. Just imagine how much faster we could have gotten our $2000 stimulus checks and $15 minimum wage. Heck, we might have voted ourselves $10,000 and $30.
Just get rid of all representation. Have everything voted on by everyone all the time. Why do we need representatives? Create one national portal and one state portal where we can vote on any pending legislation. Just imagine how much faster we could have gotten our $2000 stimulus checks and $15 minimum wage. Heck, we might have voted ourselves $10,000 and $30.
I do think at least some of the more critical and "national" type issues should be decided via referendum vote. It is hard to argue that Congress is not dysfunctional, can not agree on anything - as a matter of strategy, and too often do not reflect the will of the majority on many issues of importance.
To those - who I often agree with - and who have bought into "the election was rigged" and "stop the steal", I appeal to some principles you should be familiar with.
We want to "conserve" the Constitution. Therefore, we want to follow its prescriptions and proscriptions in regards to elections. It has worked for 240+ years - and will continue to if 1) the Left doesn't get their way 2) and we don't join them.
In this case, the constitutional "system" allows for contesting elections, recounts, challenges, objections at various points in various ways in various venues, and, most importantly, to have allegations of fraud and other irregularities litigated in court. All of that has been done. The system has been used and has rendered a verdict. You either accept that verdict or you, by necessity and definition, become an opponent of the Constitution. If you think there is some clarification or improvement to be made in the system, then the system can accommodate that through legislation, the courts, or the amendment process.
IMO, what we have seen here is a conflation between two sets of things in the minds of Trumpers. I am not a Trumper. I voted for the man twice and supported most of his policies, but I am a conservative and I prioritize the Constitution over any man or cause. The first set is confusion between the question of whether there has been fraud and whether that fraud changed the outcome of the election resulting in an illegitimate president. Of course there was fraud! We have plenty of examples of it and it is what Dems do, especially in urban areas. As to the second question, those issues were litigated and the proof simply wasn't provided. That doesn't mean there was no fraud, and it doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't fraud that changed the outcome of the election, but it does mean that there was not sufficient evidence provided that proved that the fraud changed the outcome of the election.
The second set is the difference between politics and courts. Politicians can, and do, say some crazy stuff at times. Since we no longer have a media interested in being fair arbiters, it is left up to the hearer what the "truth" is. In the political realm, you can allege anything. But allegations must be proven in court, and, if one is alleging something specific as to an effect (in this case, a stolen election), then it must be established that this did in fact occur and the evidence shows exactly how it was done. Trump alleged a lot of things. Some of them were true. "Stop the steal" was simply political rhetoric that established specific instances of fraud, but did not establish that the fraud would have changed the outcome of the election. So, here we have an example of a politician alleging that the evidence of instances of fraud proves that the fraud changed the outcome of the election - when it did no such thing. Those are two different questions with two distinct sets of evidence necessary. And I think we have confusion about the difference between what a politician alleges and what can actually be proven.
The constitutional system we have has been worked through and has yielded a result. If you don't accept that result, then you are an adherent of one man, not a constitutionalist. The correct response here for those professing to be constitutionalists would be to try to perfect any real or perceived flaws in the system and to work harder next election cycle to yield a more desirable result. But you cannot profess love for the constitution and reject its results at the same time without falling into all kinds of confusing logical absurdities.
The President failed us miserably Wednesday. He conflated the issues above, he attacked the Constitution, he misled his followers into thinking that his VP, some congressmen, and a few senators had the power to change the outcome of the election, he urged those political leaders to act unconstitutionally, he insulted and chided them for not violating the Constitution, and his rhetoric was designed to inflame the passions of his followers. The result of all of that was you had several thousand pi*sed off people willing to angrily confront whoever got in their way and what appears to be several dozen people who were prepared to assault anyone who got in their way and to vandalize the building that houses our legislative federal democracy. And then, remarkably, while this is going on, our president issues a barely acceptable admonition to those doing this, but then confuses the matter by basically saying it is understandable that they are angry! Unreal. It was the single worst series of choices I have seen a president make, and it resulted in the worst political moment in my lifetime. Disgraceful. Shameful. From start to finish. There is no excuse for it.
We want to "conserve" the Constitution. Therefore, we want to follow its prescriptions and proscriptions in regards to elections. It has worked for 240+ years - and will continue to if 1) the Left doesn't get their way 2) and we don't join them.
In this case, the constitutional "system" allows for contesting elections, recounts, challenges, objections at various points in various ways in various venues, and, most importantly, to have allegations of fraud and other irregularities litigated in court. All of that has been done. The system has been used and has rendered a verdict. You either accept that verdict or you, by necessity and definition, become an opponent of the Constitution. If you think there is some clarification or improvement to be made in the system, then the system can accommodate that through legislation, the courts, or the amendment process.
IMO, what we have seen here is a conflation between two sets of things in the minds of Trumpers. I am not a Trumper. I voted for the man twice and supported most of his policies, but I am a conservative and I prioritize the Constitution over any man or cause. The first set is confusion between the question of whether there has been fraud and whether that fraud changed the outcome of the election resulting in an illegitimate president. Of course there was fraud! We have plenty of examples of it and it is what Dems do, especially in urban areas. As to the second question, those issues were litigated and the proof simply wasn't provided. That doesn't mean there was no fraud, and it doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't fraud that changed the outcome of the election, but it does mean that there was not sufficient evidence provided that proved that the fraud changed the outcome of the election.
The second set is the difference between politics and courts. Politicians can, and do, say some crazy stuff at times. Since we no longer have a media interested in being fair arbiters, it is left up to the hearer what the "truth" is. In the political realm, you can allege anything. But allegations must be proven in court, and, if one is alleging something specific as to an effect (in this case, a stolen election), then it must be established that this did in fact occur and the evidence shows exactly how it was done. Trump alleged a lot of things. Some of them were true. "Stop the steal" was simply political rhetoric that established specific instances of fraud, but did not establish that the fraud would have changed the outcome of the election. So, here we have an example of a politician alleging that the evidence of instances of fraud proves that the fraud changed the outcome of the election - when it did no such thing. Those are two different questions with two distinct sets of evidence necessary. And I think we have confusion about the difference between what a politician alleges and what can actually be proven.
The constitutional system we have has been worked through and has yielded a result. If you don't accept that result, then you are an adherent of one man, not a constitutionalist. The correct response here for those professing to be constitutionalists would be to try to perfect any real or perceived flaws in the system and to work harder next election cycle to yield a more desirable result. But you cannot profess love for the constitution and reject its results at the same time without falling into all kinds of confusing logical absurdities.
The President failed us miserably Wednesday. He conflated the issues above, he attacked the Constitution, he misled his followers into thinking that his VP, some congressmen, and a few senators had the power to change the outcome of the election, he urged those political leaders to act unconstitutionally, he insulted and chided them for not violating the Constitution, and his rhetoric was designed to inflame the passions of his followers. The result of all of that was you had several thousand pi*sed off people willing to angrily confront whoever got in their way and what appears to be several dozen people who were prepared to assault anyone who got in their way and to vandalize the building that houses our legislative federal democracy. And then, remarkably, while this is going on, our president issues a barely acceptable admonition to those doing this, but then confuses the matter by basically saying it is understandable that they are angry! Unreal. It was the single worst series of choices I have seen a president make, and it resulted in the worst political moment in my lifetime. Disgraceful. Shameful. From start to finish. There is no excuse for it.
See my post above.
bob99
Well-known member
After reading IVCguy post I to believe we should leave the election alone, especially during the pandemic. With so many things semi shutdown and the daily threat of total shutdown the last thing I want is to do away with another source of entertainment. How can you argue with his logic? I have tried to keep an open mind and believed that there could be a possibility of fraud. I have paid attention and followed the findings as best I could. I haven't seen any tangible proof. IVC if you believe in the election system then your post is pure bunk. You can't and won't offer any proof that supports your opinions because there is none. I find you very entertaining and I thank Yappi for the opportunity to be entertained. Please IVC do not insult our intelligence and claim you are not a Trumper. Being a Trumper is nothing to be ashamed of. Be proud of your convictions.
You may be the most obtuse person I have ever interacted with on here. And that's saying something. Lol
We have a beautiful system in the electoral college. It's genius for a variety of reasons. It is state controlled and that means that the closer I am to my govt, the stronger and more effective voice I have in how the election process is done. The further the people are from their govt, the weaker the people's influence is.
The Constitution tried to create a limited federal govt, in part, for the reason that the founders understood that the most accountable govt is the most local govt. So, all powers not specifically given to the federal govt were given to the states.
What you are suggesting is an expansion of federal power in an area that is vital to our democracy. That's the long answer to your idiotic idea. The short answer is, "Uh, no."
As for your Trumper rhetoric, I cant fix that degree of stupid, and it would be a fool's errand - and while capable, I don't feel like being foolish right now.
Last edited:
bob99
Well-known member
And you sir take tergiversate to a whole new level. And that is saying a lot.Lol
I never said anything about doing away with the electoral college. If the present system is so great why is there so many people not accepting the results? Your "effective voice" doesn't seem very effective. I am not suggesting a total take over by the federal government. I am suggesting changing states having different voting processes to a plan that all states would have a presidential election that is the same nationwide. The federal government would oversee the process to maintain universal voting. Make voting fraud a federal offense with severe penalties. Don't feel bad if you can't keep up. I am typing pretty fast.
"I don't feel like being foolish right now." Why stop now? You have made an art of it and you are quite good at it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Harrycrane
Well-known member
You seriously have no idea WHY
“. So many people aren’t accepting the results of the election “ ? Coma ? Incapacitated in some other way ? Some long scientific mission with no outside contact that lasted 4 years ? Speedy recovery? Good to have you back ? You’ll catch up .
Last edited:
bob99
Well-known member
Good God Harry try and keep up. I am the one who suggested a change in the voting process. We have a segment of the population that will not accept the results of the Presidential election. This was true in 2016 and it is true now. With the current system nothing is going to change. With no uniformity there is questions about the way individual states handle their process. I haven't seen any tangible proof in any wrong doing. Not in 2016 and not in 2020. Try reading the posts on here with an open mind. You might understand what is being said instead of looking for the boogeyman in every post.
Last edited:
winbypin
Well-known member
It's harry. Sorry.
bob99
Well-known member
Thanks Winny. I feel better already.
Harrycrane
Well-known member
No one was challenging voter machines and going to court 50 plus times in 2016 trying to get states to give them a win like Trump has. This is nothing like 2016 . The loser conceded that morning and no one said there was massive voter fraud . Interference ? Yes .
Keep up ? I know you were lamely talking about federal control of the electoral college . Wow . You really think any of this massive voter fraud and dozens of law suits ever happens unless it’s a once in a lifetime mistake of a person named Don Trump who loses ?
A certain percentage of stupid people think there was massive fraud and problems with the election because the LOSER of the election told them so . The cultish dynamic makes them even more susceptible to lies and here we are . No need to change much , never mind making it a federally run Process .
Harrycrane
Well-known member
You shouldn’t actually . What about ? Your take is ridiculous . Wrong . You thinking there was a real reason besides Trump and his enablers influencing people’s version of reality making so many question the election results was not a strong one . Feeling better because of what that guy says ? That’s damn funny .Thanks Winny. I feel better already.
Just to be clear, are you talking about Hillary again, or Al Gore?
winbypin
Well-known member
Jealous isn't a good look on you hairball.
bob99
Well-known member
Once again I said nothing about doing away with the electoral college. If the electoral college was eliminated the left would control the presidency. California and New Your would run the country. Don't be putting words in my mouth. 2016 Russian interference. That has been the mantra of the Left for the last four years. Election fraud is now the mantra of many on the Right. I don't believe either scenario but I can't rule either completely out. I am not about to call either side liars. I personally cannot prove anything at 100% accuracy. Can you? Tell the truth. As long as both parties put party before country there is always the possibility of claims of voting irregularities.
bob99
Well-known member
Yes Harry. I find the whole thing damn funny. This isn't life or death to me. It is entertainment and if I can learn something every now and then all the better. Winbypin and several others on here have sharp senses of humor. I enjoy a good laugh and I am usually not disappointed on here.You should learn not to take everything so seriously. Unless that is your thing and you enjoy it, carry on.
Well, I didn't say that you were calling for scrapping the electoral college system. I simply said that it was genius in its federalism - as a preamble to the actual point I was making that state control is an essential part of maintaining the good that comes from the system - and that weakening federalism by expanding the role of the federal govt in elections has dangers with it that I don't think you fully appreciate. It's a reflex among the Left and others: "There is a problem, therefore, more federal govt!" But there you did the old trick of misrepresenting the argument and then making a fine argument against your own distortion.
I love the tergiversation comment because it is so classic of the TDS you and so many have. The logic goes like this: if you voted for Trump or ever supported anything he did, then you support what he did on Jan 6th and are responsible for it; one is not allowed to choose what they support and do not support in individual situations because any support in one instance means support in all. It's hard to categorize that kind of logic because so many labels apply - and none of them are good.
It's actually quite simple. The policies of Pres Trump were fantastic for this country - with a handful of exceptions. The personality and comments of Trump have been problematic from the start. What happened on Jan 6th represented all of the problems we knew were there, but didn't get fully expressed until that day and yielded a disgrace that I do not support. Not complicated.
Finally, I don't think I have ever had to have one of my posts edited by a moderator. So, there are some implications there that you might want to think about in terms of your emotion and reasoning.
But I do grant you that there were a few words in my post directed at you that I should have edited. I apologize.
Last edited:
bob99
Well-known member
We are good brother. For the most part we agree. I have stated that a candidate that continues on some of Trump's policies without Trump's baggage would be almost unbeatable in an election. I find it annoying that you and some others on here will play the TDS card if someone is not in total lockstep with your opinions. I don't like Trump and I don't like Biden. I felt they both are too old to run for office and both show signs of mental deficiencies. I am a right leaning centrist and support policies on both sides of the political spectrum and oppose others. I think both parties are more alike than most like to admit. As far as I know I have never had one of my posts edited by a moderator. I never looked or cared who the moderators are. So I guess by your reasoning there are some implications that you might want to think about in terms of your emotion and reasoning. For me what happened on Jan 6th and the looting and burning that occurred during the spring and summer should have been met with deadly force. Anyone who supported any of these unlawful events is not a patriot or a true American. And it doesn't matter who you voted for.