It's Time That He Lets it Go

[Guest MikeSC]

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Many voters in last year's presidential election were denied access to the polls through trickery and intimidation, former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told a voters' group Sunday.

 

"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," the Massachusetts senator said at an event sponsored by the state League of Women Voters.

 

"There is no magic wand. No one person is going to stand up and suddenly say it's going to change tomorrow. You have to do that," he said.

 

Kerry supporters have charged that voting irregularities in largely Democratic areas made it difficult for voters to cast ballots in the November election. A lawsuit in Ohio cited long lines and a shortage of voting machines in predominantly minority neighborhoods, but the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the suit.

 

Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.

 

"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.

 

Kerry has never disputed the outcome of election, saying voting irregularities did not involve enough votes to change the result. Bush won the pivotal state of Ohio by 118,000 votes, giving him enough electoral votes to win re-election.

 

Bush supporters have denied using voter intimidation tactics to keep people from going to the polls. A call to the Republican National Committee media office was not immediately returned Sunday.

 

Earlier this year, Kerry joined Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat, in filing voting reform legislation. The Count Every Vote Act would create a federal holiday for voting, require paper receipts for votes and authorize $500 million to help states upgrade voting systems and equipment.

 

Congress' investigative agency, the Government Accountability Office, has also begun looking into the handling of provisional ballots and malfunctions of voting machines. The study could lead to changes in the election process.

 

Kerry, using crutches as he recovers from knee surgery, suggested the United States should spend as much time promoting democracy at home as it does abroad in countries like Iraq.

 

"We need to go about the business of making our own democracy in America work better," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/10/ker...s.ap/index.html

I love that the Dems STILL want to portray Bush's election as fraudulent --- but don't "really question" the legitimacy of his election. Whiny twats.

 

And I hope they realize that making election day a federal holiday will actually cost us A LOT of money, as the federal employees who man polling places will have to be paid exceptionally well for working on a holiday.

 

Well, at least the legislation has no hope of passage.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I think the best was his wife going off about the electronic voting machines a month or two ago. It was just hilarious reading her tirade and realizing she didn't know the first thing about these machines she was complaining about.

 

But Kerry's killed any goodwill I had towards the guy. I thought he was pretty classy right after the election but he's continued to remind me why I would've rather died than vote for him. And to think it's going to be even worse in 2008 if it ends up being Clinton/McCain.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Oh sweet Jesus. Waaaah. I'm still waiting for proof of those Florida police attack dogs back in 2000.

 

Last week I heard this story on RIGHT-WING RADIO about several Southwestern PA counties that were ordered to cease using touch-screen voting machines because of the high-rate of error (this was a top-of-the-hour-news-update and not from Hannity).

 

*sarcasm on* And we don't need a voting holiday -- besides, most Democrat voters don't work anyway so it's not like the Party would gain much from this anyway.*sarcasm off...*

[tommytomlin 0]

/legitimate question

 

Why not just vote on a Saturday?

[Guest BDC]

Um, it's not Constitutional?

[Jingus 0]

And I hope they realize that making election day a federal holiday will actually cost us A LOT of money, as the federal employees who man polling places will have to be paid exceptionally well for working on a holiday.

Eh, I dunno, I kinda like this idea. There are a lot of really busy people who have a hard time making it to the polls, plus the lines grow to epic lengths after work hours. As to the salary thing, I'm sure that some kind of special exemption could be worked out where the election workers are paid an ordinary wage. Also, aren't a lot of those people volunteers anyway?

 

Election reform is certainly needed. After all, we've got a system that has given victory to the man who lost the popular vote in four separate instances now. But I hardly think that the 2004 election was rife with fraud and scandal; too many people were watching too damn hard and it would've been noticed.

[Guest MikeSC]

And I hope they realize that making election day a federal holiday will actually cost us A LOT of money, as the federal employees who man polling places will have to be paid exceptionally well for working on a holiday.

Eh, I dunno, I kinda like this idea. There are a lot of really busy people who have a hard time making it to the polls, plus the lines grow to epic lengths after work hours.

 

You do realize that no private employer fires you for voting during one's lunch hour, right? There are protections.

As to the salary thing, I'm sure that some kind of special exemption could be worked out where the election workers are paid an ordinary wage.  Also, aren't a lot of those people volunteers anyway? 

Considering how insanely unionized gov't employees are --- no, you won't be able to get an exemption.

Election reform is certainly needed.  After all, we've got a system that has given victory to the man who lost the popular vote in four separate instances now.  But I hardly think that the 2004 election was rife with fraud and scandal; too many people were watching too damn hard and it would've been noticed.

The popular vote thing is a red herring. It really is irrelevant. The current system is more fair as it doesn't allow big cities to utterly dominate the political system.

 

2000 and 2004 were BOTH not rife with fraud and scandal. God knows 2000 has had more than its share of investigations and they couldn't find anything.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

The popular vote thing is a red herring. It really is irrelevant.

I've argued this with you on several occasions, Mike, and I can never comprehend your stubborn resistence to the very simple equation of "most votes = winner". Majority rule is the most basic fundament of democracy, and we've had four elections now where the minority ruled.

 

Big cities wouldn't dominate in a popular vote system. Nobody would dominate. Every single individual vote would be counted equally.

 

"But what about big-city vote fraud" you'll say. Well, first of all, if there's no fraud or scandal in the elections these days and everything runs so smoothly, how would all this new fraud come about? And secondly even if that were an issue, my favorite voting system idea, doling out the electoral votes individually in each state based on the percentage of the popular votes that the candidates receive in that state, neatly sidesteps that issue altogether by narrowing the effect of any possible voter fraud to just one small area.

[Perfxion 0]

How come this system with voting on Tuesday leads to us being happy that 58% voted this last election and in 3rd world countries in revolutions they have a voting turnout of about 95%

 

The US is the only major country to not have voting on the weekends or a national holiday. If they want to save cost on elections, move it to a national holiday like Vets Day, which is only days away. All federal employees still get the same deal as before. And almost ALL people who work the voting booths are not being paid, so it doesn't make much of a difference.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

You won't get the turnout rate to get any better. I'd say it'd probably drop if it went to the weekend as you'd lose the people using voting as an excuse to get time off from school or work.

[2GOLD 0]

You won't get the turnout rate to get any better.  I'd say it'd probably drop if it went to the weekend as you'd lose the people using voting as an excuse to get time off from school or work.

 

Like me.

I only vote so I have the right to complain and praise. Put it on the weekend and I can finds ton more to do than waste four hours of my life.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Personally, if it takes a paid national holiday for some fuckwad to bother to go out and vote, then I don't want them taking part in the selection of our representative republic.

 

And you can't be fired for missing a part of work to go an vote. It's the law.

 

Majority rule is the most basic fundament of democracy

 

Tell that to the red diaper doper baby judges out there...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The popular vote thing is a red herring. It really is irrelevant.

I've argued this with you on several occasions, Mike, and I can never comprehend your stubborn resistence to the very simple equation of "most votes = winner". Majority rule is the most basic fundament of democracy, and we've had four elections now where the minority ruled.

 

Big cities wouldn't dominate in a popular vote system. Nobody would dominate. Every single individual vote would be counted equally.

 

"But what about big-city vote fraud" you'll say. Well, first of all, if there's no fraud or scandal in the elections these days and everything runs so smoothly, how would all this new fraud come about? And secondly even if that were an issue, my favorite voting system idea, doling out the electoral votes individually in each state based on the percentage of the popular votes that the candidates receive in that state, neatly sidesteps that issue altogether by narrowing the effect of any possible voter fraud to just one small area.

Jingus,

 

The problem with winning the popular vote and popular vote only stems from the fact that a candidate would only have to campaign in a very small number of states to get the necessary support to win. The E.C. system tries to mitigate this by forcing candidates to visit many more mid-major states. Thus, you get a better sampling of geographic representation.

 

-sjp

[SuperJerk 0]

And I hope they realize that making election day a federal holiday will actually cost us A LOT of money, as the federal employees who man polling places will have to be paid exceptionally well for working on a holiday.

Since when do federal employees man polling places?

 

The problem with winning the popular vote and popular vote only stems from the fact that a candidate would only have to campaign in a very small number of states to get the necessary support to win.

 

Do you realize you'd only have to win 11 states to win under the current Electoral College system?

 

Any candidate could spent 100% of his time campaigning in and making promises to 11 states (California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas), and win. Under the current system, a candidate could get just 50.1% of the votes in those states, not get a single vote in another state, and still win. He wouldn’t even have to be on the ballot in 39 states, and he would still win.

 

Also, there are other problems. For example, the number of Electoral College votes given to each State equals the number of Representatives and Senators that each State sends to Congress. Every state has at least 3 Electoral College votes, because each State gets two Senators and at least one Representative. The District of Columbia has three electoral votes because the 23rd Amendment granted it the same number of votes as the least populated State. In other words, states are not represented according to their population.

 

Even worse, just because a candidate wins a state, there’s still a chance the votes might go to someone else. In some states, electors aren't even required to vote for the person who wins their state.

 

The Electoral College's flaws outweigh its benefits.

[Jingus 0]

Y2J stated a lot of my best points. A popular vote system might put unfair weight in the hands of the cities? The electoral vote system already does that.

 

I just can't understand anyone supporting a system that is SO flawed that the winner of the election could've had literally millions of votes less than the loser, just because some other untried systems "might" have their own problems.

[SuperJerk 0]

Y2J stated a lot of my best points.

Was that a vote for me to go back to my old name?

[Vyce 0]

I just can't understand anyone supporting a system that is SO flawed that the winner of the election could've had literally millions of votes less than the loser, just because some other untried systems "might" have their own problems.

I'm not coming down one way or the other in this argument.

 

However, I do firmly believe that the people who have been arguing so strongly for popular vote over electoral college these past few years wouldn't honestly be making that argument had Al Gore not won the popular vote in 2000.

[Red Baron 0]

I'm not sure how your voting laws work in the US, but its mandatory for Canadians to have three hours time off on election day to go vote (if they want to)

[Guest MikeSC]

Y2J stated a lot of my best points. A popular vote system might put unfair weight in the hands of the cities? The electoral vote system already does that.

 

I just can't understand anyone supporting a system that is SO flawed that the winner of the election could've had literally millions of votes less than the loser, just because some other untried systems "might" have their own problems.

And I don't get how anybody can support a system where a machine in a big city can churn out enough illegal votes to completely change the election for the entire country.

-=Mike

[therealworldschampion 0]

John Kerry = Freddie Mitchell, they're both still whining....

[Jingus 0]

And I don't get how anybody can support a system where a machine in a big city can churn out enough illegal votes to completely change the election for the entire country.

We've had this argument many times, Mike. You know I'm not advocating a simple majority election. I just don't think that those "illegal votes" that you're so worried about are actually that likely to happen. Yes, they did happen before. Yes, our country's history is chock-full of examples of voter fraud. Well, FIX IT! The United States Federal Government should certainly be able to invent or buy a truly fraud-proof voting machine. We've got the best technology in the world. I don't have the solution myself, cuz I don't design voting machines for a living. Longer ranting post to follow.

[Jingus 0]

There have been four instances of a Presidential candidate losing the popular vote but winning the election.

 

FOUR, for chrissakes.

 

We've only had 43 Presidents. Doing the math, that means that about 10% of this country's leaders have gotten into the White House despite the fact that more American citizens voted for their opponent.

 

Can anyone explain to me how it makes sense for the guy with the most votes to lose? And don't EVEN bring partisan matters into this, this isn't liberal whining because their candidate didn't win. It's a legitimate grievance with a system of government which has clearly showed itself to be fucking stupid.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

I also heard a good point made last year on RIGHT-WING RADIO about how people risk death in other countries to vote, yet wimps here whine about standing in the sun/rain or simply waiting.

[Guest MikeSC]

And I don't get how anybody can support a system where a machine in a big city can churn out enough illegal votes to completely change the election for the entire country.

We've had this argument many times, Mike. You know I'm not advocating a simple majority election. I just don't think that those "illegal votes" that you're so worried about are actually that likely to happen. Yes, they did happen before. Yes, our country's history is chock-full of examples of voter fraud. Well, FIX IT!

Fix it?

 

Easier said than done, considering the left goes insane when you dare even ask for, oh, presenting some form of picture ID to vote.

 

It's "discriminatory", ya know.

 

I'm all for completely purging the voting rolls and making evrybody re-register for every election --- but nobody else seems to be. And until THAT happens, fraud is way, way too easy to occur.

 

See the Washington governor's race.

The United States Federal Government should certainly be able to invent or buy a truly fraud-proof voting machine.

The problem isn't the machine. The problem is machine politics, where the people who run the city or state are able to have as many people vote as they want.

 

See Kennedy winning in IL in the 1960 Presidential election. Or, hell, LA politics at any point.

 

And, just for you trivia buffs, do you realize that the only reason LBJ had a political career at all is because the Democratic machine in TX stole his first election for him? They've openly admitted to it.

We've got the best technology in the world.  I don't have the solution myself, cuz I don't design voting machines for a living.  Longer ranting post to follow.

Our system gives small states some say in things. When a President can have more votes, yet one can walk from one side of the country to the other and not enter a county he won --- you have a problem.

 

The current system is more representative.

There have been four instances of a Presidential candidate losing the popular vote but winning the election.

 

FOUR, for chrissakes.

 

We've only had 43 Presidents. Doing the math, that means that about 10% of this country's leaders have gotten into the White House despite the fact that more American citizens voted for their opponent.

 

Can anyone explain to me how it makes sense for the guy with the most votes to lose?

Let's see what caused that to happen.

 

Let's look at Gore.

 

The networks declare FL for him, erroneously, before the polls closed. That cost Bush God knows how many votes in FL --- and in almost EVERY OTHER STATE whose polls were still open, because everybody knew he had to win FL to win the election. If he lost FL, why stand in line? So, Gore got more votes --- but you can thank, in large part, the networks giving him a win in FL despite him never, ever leading in the popular vote at any point in the evening. I could ALSO mention some judge's keeping polls open in St. Louis, MO long after they were supposed to be closed for no valid reason. And don't even get me started on how corrupt the simple process of voter registration in MO is.

 

And, of course, I can still mention the Washington governor's race, where Gregoire won when King County repeatedly "found" votes for her that they apparently missed in the original count.

 

And then they forgot to find them for the first 2 recounts.

 

But the final one --- oh yeah, they found them for that one.

 

Seems a little fishy.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The networks declare FL for him, erroneously, before the polls closed. That cost Bush God knows how many votes in FL --- and in almost EVERY OTHER STATE whose polls were still open, because everybody knew he had to win FL to win the election. If he lost FL, why stand in line? So, Gore got more votes --- but you can thank, in large part, the networks giving him a win in FL despite him never, ever leading in the popular vote at any point in the evening. I could ALSO mention some judge's keeping polls open in St. Louis, MO long after they were supposed to be closed for no valid reason. And don't even get me started on how corrupt the simple process of voter registration in MO is.

 

...isn't this an argument for a popular vote system?

[Guest MikeSC]

The networks declare FL for him, erroneously, before the polls closed. That cost Bush God knows how many votes in FL --- and in almost EVERY OTHER STATE whose polls were still open, because everybody knew he had to win FL to win the election. If he lost FL, why stand in line? So, Gore got more votes --- but you can thank, in large part, the networks giving him a win in FL despite him never, ever leading in the popular vote at any point in the evening. I could ALSO mention some judge's keeping polls open in St. Louis, MO long after they were supposed to be closed for no valid reason. And don't even get me started on how corrupt the simple process of voter registration in MO is.

 

...isn't this an argument for a popular vote system?

Yes.

 

But then you have the Washington governor's race to temper that.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

I just can't understand anyone supporting a system that is SO flawed that the winner of the election could've had literally millions of votes less than the loser, just because some other untried systems "might" have their own problems.

I'm not coming down one way or the other in this argument.

 

However, I do firmly believe that the people who have been arguing so strongly for popular vote over electoral college these past few years wouldn't honestly be making that argument had Al Gore not won the popular vote in 2000.

Speaking for myself, I've always been against it.

 

Before the 2000 election, I knew a guy who went off on a rant about how stupid the electoral college. Then Bush won, and he suddenly favored it. Hypocrisy runs both ways.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Yeh, I dunno, I'm not really against the EC, per se, but the people who overzealously defend it mystify me.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Before the 2000 election, I knew a guy who went off on a rant about how stupid the electoral college.  Then Bush won, and he suddenly favored it.

Before the 2000 election I knew a political party that was all about the EC because their candidate wasn't all that snazzy, but then they won the popular vote and became all about that...

[Boon 0]

There have been four instances of a Presidential candidate losing the popular vote but winning the election. 

 

FOUR, for chrissakes. 

 

We've only had 43 Presidents.  Doing the math, that means that about 10% of this country's leaders have gotten into the White House despite the fact that more American citizens voted for their opponent.

 

Can anyone explain to me how it makes sense for the guy with the most votes to lose?  And don't EVEN bring partisan matters into this, this isn't liberal whining because their candidate didn't win.  It's a legitimate grievance with a system of government which has clearly showed itself to be fucking stupid.

1876- Tilden/Hayes

1888- Cleveland/Harrison

2000- Bush/Gore

 

I count three- what's the fourth time?

Besides the fact that the electoral college has only been around for 36 elections, not 43. So by my numbers its 3/36, or about 8% of elections.

Edit: These numbers might be off, I'm double checking them now.

 

Per the founding fathers:

-Election by state gov'ts was ruled undemocratic.

-Direct election was shot down by the founding fathers b/c they felt the public was ill-suited to pick their leader.

-Committee of Congress was ruled undemocratic.

-All of Congress votes- violates separation of powers.

So they set us up w/ the electoral college.

 

You have other election problems not b/c of the electoral college, e.g. 1796 and 1800.

 

Strengths of the electoral college:

-Always produces a President

-Supports two party system (which you may or may not approve of)

-Supports federalism

 

In popular vote, you still have big state campaigning, even moreso then now. Candidates absolutely forget about Delaware, Rhode Island, etc. It would also promote a multi-party system- if you think it's bad that we don't have a majority now, imagine what another Ross Perot would do to the count (take 20% away from the Dems and Repubs and then listen to the bitching about how theres no majority.)

 

If you want election reform, I'd suggest either the District Plan (electoral votes separated by Congressional districts) or the Nat'l Bonus plan, where there are "bonus electoral votes" for winning the popular vote.