Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Rigging” the electoral system only is bad when it hurts Democrats

“Rigging” the electoral system only is bad when it hurts Democrats

As things stand now, the Electoral College favors Democrats because they are all but guaranteed to win a small number of large winner take all states, such as California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, plus a coalition of hopelessly blue states.

Democrats start off close to victory because of winner-take-all voting in those states, even if they win those states by a small margin in each state.

The system currently is “rigged” to favor Democrats, if you want to look at it that way.

So Republicans in some states have come up with a perfectly constitutional alternative which already is used in Maine and Nebraska, awarding electoral college votes by congressional district.  This would help Republicans in several states.  It’s perfectly constitutional because states get to decide how to award electoral votes.

The possibility that this may help Republicans has Larry Sabato screaming Stop Thief:

As we suspected, it would permit a GOP nominee to capture the White House even while losing the popular vote by many millions. This is not a relatively small Electoral College “misfire” on the order of 1888 or 2000. Instead, it is a corrupt and cynical maneuver to frustrate popular will and put a heavy thumb — the whole hand, in fact — on the scale for future Republican candidates. We do not play presidential politics with a golf handicap awarded to the weaker side.

Republicans face a choice that can best be characterized by personalizing it. A healthy, optimistic party is Reaganesque, convinced that it can win the future by embracing it, and by making a positive case for its philosophy and candidates to all Americans. A party in decline is Nixonian and fears the future; it sees enemies everywhere, feels overwhelmed by electoral trends, and thinks it can win only by cheating, by subverting the system and stacking the deck in its favor. Whose presidency was more successful, Reagan’s or Nixon’s? Which man made the Republican brand more appealing?

Sorry, but that argument doesn’t cut it.

Award by congressional district is in use in two states, has been proposed many times before elsewhere, and still requires presidential candidates to win elections in congressional districts.  It may favor Republicans, or it may not, depending on the state and the presidential candidate.  Awarding electoral votes by district may have a positive impact of forcing candidates to campaign outside the large cities and bring a more geographically diverse electorate into the voting booth for them.

To equate it to cheating is constitutionally ignorant.  I also reject the methodology of looking back at the last election in which the system was not in place and forecasting future results.  The fact is we don’t know what the results would have been if the candidates had to alter their campaign strategies under a district-based formula.

While awarding electors by congressional district may favor Republicans now in some states, it may favor Democrats in the future, just as the winner take all favors Democrats now.  To take a temporal view and declare it “cheating” shows that the accuser is politicizing the issue just as much as the alleged cheaters.

Indeed, look at the rogues gallery screaming that Republicans want to “rig” the system:

Memeorandum - Sabato Undermine

Oh, TPM and Think Progress are only concerned with fairness, right?  And Balloon Juice and Maddow Blog? If they are against it, it’s almost certainly good for the nation.

If the shoe were on the other foot we know what the result would be.  They like the current system — which is not constitutionally required — because it helps them.

The push and pull of redistricting as a result of state-level elections is part of the process, and if it impacts the Electoral College, so be it.

Elections have consequences.  Including at the state level.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Of course, the move pushing the national popular vote method is entirely fair…

    I fear going to an entirely popular vote for national office because, without strong security in the voting system to underwrite the accuracy of the vote, what happened in Florida in 2000 would happen nationwide.

    Anywhere a candidate thought he could “mine for votes” would be involved in a “recount” .. across all 50 states. It could take years in the courts to resolve.

    imfine in reply to DocInKY. | January 25, 2013 at 2:03 pm

    Of course they want to move to popular vote, the democrats are masters of fraud and party machines. Democracy is therefore a threat to Democrats and is unfair.

9thDistrictNeighbor | January 25, 2013 at 9:25 am

“As we suspected, it would permit a GOP nominee to capture the White House even while losing the popular vote by many millions.”

Democrats have been losing elections by many millions of acres for a very long time.

    Notice how there was no mention in these articles about the allocation system adopted by some states (CO, ME ? come to mind) that would allocate all their votes to the winner of the popular vote. Of course, this method was predicated by having “enough” other states doing the same thing.

Hey, it causes Collectivists to get the squirts…

I LIKE it…!!!

    I saw one argument that allocating electoral votes by Congressional districts would hurt advertising revenues. Now, who exactly would be worried about that ?

    The best argument was that it could cause a national candidate to help unseat a weak Congress-critter.

Actually if you are going to have the electoral college, this is the only true fair way to have it and it be both fair and in keeping with its original intent. I have written about this twice, once as just a matter of general principle and a way to open up the system http://jer-jersplace.blogspot.com/2012/10/empowering-swingers-to-save-country.html

and once on how the Republicans can and should use it to offset the Progressives advantage http://jer-jersplace.blogspot.com/2012/12/all-politics-is-localor-should-be.html

If the Republicans do not do this where they can, they are indeed the stupid party and not worth supporting in order to save our nation, IMO

Anything that slows down the massive amount of Democrat voter fraud coming out of Philly is a good thing. I am tired of my vote being wiped out by fake votes from Philly.

They can not cheat enough to wipe out all of the congressional district votes. So for once, my vote might actual mean something.

If we lose fairly, then so be it. But for once, let’s see what happens when honest – as close to honest as it’s going to get – votes don’t get overwhelmed by cheaters.

And could we repeal the 17th Amendment while we’re at it…please?

My initial reaction is to oppose this proposal. Two reasons:

1. Beware of unintended consequences.

2. This would represent another blow to the concept of federalism, just as a national popular vote would be a blow to federalism. Anytime you remove a function served by states, you are diminishing the importance of states in our constitutional scheme. Once you declare that it’s unacceptably undemocratic for a state to award all of its electors based on a single statewide vote, it becomes harder to defend having a Senate in which the smallest states get the same number of votes as the largest.

I agree that this isn’t “cheating,” but it also isn’t very wise — and it’s certainly not very conservative — to diddle around with these things.

    so you are ok with your states ec’s going to the candidate who won the pop vote in OTHER states?
    why should the voters in another state determine who your state votes for?
    the ec was already diddled with a long time ago.

      Conrad in reply to dmacleo. | January 25, 2013 at 11:02 am

      When did I say that I was ok with my state’s EVs going to the candidate who won the pop vote in OTHER states? I think it should be winner-take-all-EVs according to the popular vote in each state, which is the system generally in use throughout our history.

        Red_Right_Returning in reply to Conrad. | January 25, 2013 at 3:45 pm

        Actually, the district-by-district system was as common in the 19th Century as the winner-take-all system. Left-wing writers used to (pre-Obama) praise Maine and Nebraska for their “fairer” allocation of electoral votes. Many of them urged that method on other states ,especially in the 1980s, when the Republicans had an “Electoral College lock” that included California, Texas, and New Jersey, as well as the South and the West.

        In 2004, Democrats and their allies put a proposition on the Colorado ballot that would have allocated the state’s electoral votes proportionally based on the statewide popular vote. If the proposition had passed, it would have applied retroactively to that day’s election.

    stevewhitemd in reply to Conrad. | January 25, 2013 at 11:03 am

    Conrad:

    1. What are the unintended consequences that concern you? You should be able to identify at least one or two if you are worried.

    2. A state dividing its electoral vote to reflect the wishes of its citizens (as Maine and Nebraska do) is not endangering federalism — indeed, it’s a model of federalism. States do as they wish inside their own borders so long as it is in conformance with the Constitution. That New York awards all its EVs as a single block, and Maine does so by congressional district, makes neither right nor wrong. It is exactly federalism in action.

    You correctly note the danger of states forming a coalition to award their EVs en bloc based on the national vote (or any other criteria). That indeed does endanger federalism as it invites OTHER coalitions of states to vie with each other. That’s a recipe for regionalism and in the end, separatism. We don’t want that.

    But a state awarding its EVs based on a vote based on the vote within districts, or alternately based on the proportion of the vote within the state as a whole, does not challenge federalism at all.

      1. Well, on eunintended consequence is the possibility that this ends up helping Dems more than Republicans. There may be others that I’m not smart enough to anticipate, but I KNOW they are out there (potentially) because, in my experience, most efforts to improve the world seem to have some kinds of unintended consequence (e.g., better windows and insulation have increased indoor air pollution).

      2. I disagree. Any kind of proportionate allocation of EVs by a state undermines the idea that each state is its own distinct political entity, rather than just a collection of congressional districts or a subset of the overall population of the U.S. I get your point that it’s the state itself that is choosing to go this route, and that the choice to do so could therefore be characterized as an example of federalism. But I don’t think that momentary demonstration of federalism comes close to outweighing the significance of COMPLETELY from our system the concept of STATES’ voting for presidents. That’s kind of a big deal. From there, it’s only a matter of time before you get direct, popular voting for president (because what’s the point of doing it by congressional distruct if they are all about the same population anyway?); and from there, why have a Senate?

        Soccerdad in reply to Conrad. | January 25, 2013 at 2:28 pm

        First of all Conrad’s 100% about unintended consequences. The movement for a national popular vote was a very popular cause for the Left after 2000. But when the possibility arose that Romney could lose the electoral vote but win the popular vote, they became very quiet.
        In Maryland the Democratically (but not democratically) controlled government redistricted a Republican member of the house out of his job. What if a currently red state, goes blue in the next decade and the same things happens? We could see a state go from (hypothetically)9 REP votes to 6 REP and 3 DEM votes.

But if they want to change the rules in a few blue states, doesn’t its seem fair to change the rules in all states—including red states? Oh, but that’s right, conservatives don’t believe ‘fairness’ is relevant.

    BD1957 in reply to tadcf. | January 25, 2013 at 10:27 am

    If “red states” want to do it, that’s fine by me.

    Ragspierre in reply to tadcf. | January 25, 2013 at 10:34 am

    tad is a non-reading troll of my acquaintance.

    No, tad, see…this IS a state matter, not a Federal matter. States CAN do this, and…you’re right…”fairness” is not a consideration because “fairness” is an enigma. (It is a mystery what it means.)

and yet they don’t scream when a states EC votes are awarded due to how the candidate did in other states.
one of the few things maine has done right.

    stevewhitemd in reply to dmacleo. | January 25, 2013 at 10:58 am

    Yep. The idea that my state would put its electoral votes into a basket and then divvied up based on the popular vote is anti-constitutional and dangerous. States created the federal government, and states control the election. States should not cede that control either to the population at large (we’re a federal republic for a reason) or to a coalition of states working together. That’s a recipe for a federal breakdown.

Will never happen in those States you mentioned or many of the lesser Blue States; why, well…because they are Blue and would never give up the control the Big Cities have over the State.

You’ve got to be kidding, no one remembers 2000? That favored Democrats?

Big states don’t benefit from the EC, small ones do, since they get 2 votes based on their Senators. That gives them more EC votes for smaller numbers of people.
Then think of all the gerrymandering, which is already bad enough, plus the number of recounts that would happen based on individual Congressional districts. Nor would this help third party candidates.

The EC has been a disaster from the get o, after the 1796 and 1800 elections, it had to be revised by the 12th Amendment.

Any candidate who loses by a large margin and still gets the White House will rule over a hornet’s nest. This will be seen as an attempt to undermine a system that has been in place for over 200 years simply because one party keeps losing.

    askeptic in reply to james23912. | January 25, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    We are a Federal Republic, not a Democracy.
    If that is unsatisfactory, call for a Constitutional Convention, and re-write the Constitution. Until then, live with the few anomalies that you cite, as they are – in the long term – insignificant. But then, the Post-Modern Generation has difficulty looking at anything in the long term, as it demands instant gratification.

Larry Sabato tries to hide his bias but he can’t. Nothing neutral about any of his political opinions coming from his center at University of Virginia. He must have missed logic class in law school (do they teach it?); he talks about “cheaters” but it’s perfectly fine for the majority of the country’s votes to be Diluted by the urban core centers of the country, who have little in common with the majority culture across the nation.

This does not remove the function of the states. It is an internal state decision on how to accurately count the votes of the actual citizen.

In the case of Pennsylvania, the votes of the citizens is wiped out by massive voter fraud in two cities: Pittsburg and Philadelphia. We all read about the shenanigans in Philly in Nov. and the courts halting the voter id, even though the plaintiff got her photo id.
Why should the state’s citizens accept a method of vote counting that allows fraudulent votes to be mixed with honest votes? They shouldn’t and this idea of counting by congressional districts is worth exploring.

I agree with you on the dangers of a national popular vote. it is just asking the democrat party to got nuts with unaccountable voter fraud.

    tazz in reply to tazz. | January 25, 2013 at 10:45 am

    In response to Conrad at 9:59 am

      Conrad in reply to tazz. | January 25, 2013 at 11:11 am

      It removes the element that a state is voting AS A STATE, Instead of “Ohio votes for Bush,” it’s “the 2st Congressional District votes for Bush; the 2d Congressional District votes for Kerry, . . . ” etc. You might as well just number each congressional district “1” through “435,” because the states QUA states will have absolutely nothing to do with it (if this system were sopted throughout, I mean).

      As for the business about vote fraud, here’s a better solution: Combat vote fraud.

        askeptic in reply to Conrad. | January 25, 2013 at 12:37 pm

        You must have missed the point that the winner of the state-wide popular vote is awarded the two EC votes apportioned for Senate representation.
        Theoretically, a state with 10 Congressional Districts could have one candidate win 9 by just a few votes each, and lose overwhelmingly in the 10th – losing the popular vote, but get 9 of 12 EC votes. That candidate could be of either party, depending on the demographics and national mood. But, the EC would more closely reflect the mood of the electorate than in a winner-take-all system where in a place like CA, you can lose the popular vote by a few hundred-thousand, and see your opponent pick up 55 ECV’s.

I think having states split up their electoral votes by congressional district is a great idea. It’s also completely hypocritical that Democrats are whining about this.

A couple of states, including Illinois under Blagojevich, have passed electoral vote changes when the same law is passed in enough states. This change would tie the electoral votes of a state with the electoral votes of the other states that passed this law, regardless of whether or not the states’ popular vote would normally force the electors to vote that way. Example: California’s and New York’s electors vote for Obama because the popular vote in those states went for Obama; Illinois’ electors, tied to those two states, would be forced to vote for Obama even if Illinois voters had voted for Romney. Whole states’ voters would be completely disenfranchised.

The largest cities lie in 13 states, almost all of them blue states, and only a couple of others passing the same law would give Democrats a perpetual 270 electors every Presidential election. And yet the hypocrites who are trying to get this passed and to literally disenfranchise tens of millions of voters dare to complain about a change that is actually fair and a better representation of how the electors should vote.

    MrRemy in reply to SteveAR. | January 25, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    You misunderstand how the NPV initiative works. What the plan passed by Illinois, California and others does is award their states’ electoral votes to the winner of that popular vote nationally, i.e., in 2004, when Bush solidly won the popular vote nationally the electoral votes of California and Illinois would have gone to Bush, no matter how the vote in those individual states went.

    There are definitely pluses and minuses to this plan (imagine a national recount), but it isn’t fair to say it would benefit one side or the other.

Apparently the Constitution is fungible, but the Electoral College is not.

    Conrad in reply to Diggs. | January 25, 2013 at 11:13 am

    I think you mean “changeable” or “malleable.” Fungible means something else.

    askeptic in reply to Diggs. | January 25, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    The Electoral College IS amendable – like all parts of the Constitution (see Article V). However, it is up to the states to apportion their ECV’s in any manner they choose as long as it does not conflict with the Constitution.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | January 25, 2013 at 10:53 am

The attribution for the post is wrong. While it was published on Sabato’s blog, a fellow named “Alan I. Abramowitz, Senior Columnist” is taking credit for it.

I’d be surprised if Sabato would describe a perfectly constitutional change in how EC votes are cast as “cheating”.

The Professor makes a great point: you can’t use a projection of a recounted past election with such a system in place as an example of what the future might hold. Indeed, both Mr. Obama (well, the troika of Plouffe, Messina and Axelrod) and Mr. Romney would have run very different campaigns last year had this system been in place in Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio. Their spending, campaign stops, and strategy would have had to account for where their most likely electoral votes were and where they might be able to snatch a few more.

The same holds true for Republicans, and this is a caution: just because you get Pennsylvania to award electoral votes by congressional district doesn’t mean you’re in-like-Flynn. You won’t capture the Presidency by revamping the electoral system

You win the Presidency by convincing people to vote for you. Obama, curse him, did that: his team went out and found voters who would cast their ballots for him. Their data system, volunteers, cash, ghost vote, etc all came together. Mr. Romney failed in that task, and a few electoral votes would not have saved him.

You still have to do the basics. You still have to persuade people to vote for you. The best this proposal will do is level the playing field.

    The latter part of the comment, especially, is worth emphasizing and repeating. I’ll do both:

    …this is a caution: just because you get Pennsylvania to award electoral votes by congressional district doesn’t mean you’re in-like-Flynn. You won’t capture the Presidency by revamping the electoral system

    You win the Presidency by convincing people to vote for you. Obama, curse him, did that: his team went out and found voters who would cast their ballots for him. Their data system, volunteers, cash, ghost vote, etc all came together. Mr. Romney failed in that task, and a few electoral votes would not have saved him.

    You still have to do the basics. You still have to persuade people to vote for you. The best this proposal will do is level the playing field.

    With all due respect to Steve, I wouldn’t state that the proposal comprehensively levels the playing field (nor did Steve go that far), but I believe it does more good than harm. As a matter of practical politics, the Democrats favor urban areas at the expense of rural areas. It is entirely legitimate for Republicans to resist.

How interesting. I would not be surprised if Larry Sabato was in favor of eliminating the Electoral College after the 2000 election.

The liberals going bonkers over the perfectly legal and constitutional proposals to award electoral votes by congressional district simply have not thought this through. The charges of “disenfranchisement”, and of course, “racism” are knee jerk reactions. But if one actually thought about this proposal for a minute, its true nature if generally adopted would be 100% the OPPOSITE of these charges. It would actually enfranchise and empower certain groups, cohesive voting groups that dominate certain congressional districtrs, and can elect congressman, but more rarely senators, and even more rarely presidents. These various groups obviously include black voters, Tea party voters, pro life voters, NRA supporters, and “metrosexual urban voters”.

Back in the 60’s when I was a leftist (and briefly a “community organizer”) it was generally regarded as obvious that the electoral college system killed the path of 3rd parties in the US, e.g. of a black party, but in fact it was not the electoral college which did this but the state winner take all system. Under the system proposed in VA there would be on the order of 50 reliable EV for a black party, and as many for a Tea Party candidate.

Just as the EU super state unexpectedly loosened the need for national states in euroland, releasing for example Scotland, Catalonia, Flanders, and even Wales to envisage viable independence, so too the congressional EV system would lessen the need for politically cohesive voter blocks to cast their lot with one of the “two major parties”.

Long term this might well change American politics drastically, and in so many ways that it would be hard if not impossible to predict “kto kovo” (who is f***ing who) long term.

On the bright side, it’s a good thing democrats win elections.

Otherwise, they’d be calling for their tried and true remedy for all things they dislike.

BAN. Republicans, from voting.

tad demonstrates the entire problem with “equity” or “fairness”. His definition is “whatever gives me an advantage is fair and whatever gives any of my opponents an advantage is unfair.” I have to admit that the definition does make it easier for him, since he doesn’t really have to think at all to apply it.

Obama won by what, 5 million votes? Do people really think that having Romney win wouldn’t create a huge backlash? This type of thinking is exactly why the GOP keeps losing.
The GOP voter suppression effort created its own backlash, the Dem turnout was higher than expected due t GOP voter suppression.

And what is this “majority culture” someone mentions, didn’t the national vote show what the majority culture is?

    Ragspierre in reply to james23912. | January 25, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Oh, the Collective DID turn out a lot more than one would expect, given the gross failures of the Obamic regime…

    whipped, as usual, by whole packs of lies, among them the one you are so fond of.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to james23912. | January 25, 2013 at 4:39 pm

    GOP voter suppression?

    Like “voter I.D. laws”? Hell, even the UN observers, brought in by the Progressocrats thought honor system voting was pretty fuc*ing stupid.

    Oh, and how about all those military ballots that didn’t get sent in time, as required by US law?

Maybe voting for our Congresspeople should be changed, too, instead of majority rule, why not go by whoever wins the most streets?

Oddly enough, since the Constitution guarantees a “republican form of government” winning the most streets would appear to be right out.

You know what’s fair?

Absolutely Nothing

[…] » “Rigging” the electoral system only is bad when it hurts Democrats – Le&mi… […]

The Left is always in search of the perfect system, which has caused them to re-work the internal nomination rules of the Democrat Party constantly since 1968.
Strangely enough, they result always seems to reflect the views of whichever interest group has attained the loudest megaphone at the time.
I would remind everyone that our current system is the result of an attempt “to form a more perfect Union”; “more perfect” being the operable phrase since in all human endeavors, perfection is impossible.

As the system works, now Democrats use their advantage in large, corrupt, urban areas to cheat like hell, pad their popular vote, and win the statewide vote; taking all the EV of a particular state. Which of the blue states was it that kept coming up with “found” votes, in a particular democratic district, until the election was won – and they got everything. I believe that’s the complaint about Philadelphia. They keep finding votes until the Dems get everything. Under the purposed system House District “X” would give its EV to whoever won that district. The Dems could still use their corrupt urban districts ti take the two Senators votes – but not the entire states EV. As a New Yorker, I would be fascinated to see how well Dems actually did in the entire state outside of NYC.

California is way too big a state. One out of every 8 US residents and with at least 4 separate, geographically distinct cultures constantly at war. It needs to be broken up into 3-5 states as part of its coming bankruptcy. This would solve part of the problem (and no, those states would not be all blue).

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to caseym54. | January 25, 2013 at 4:42 pm

    If everything west of the San Andreas Fault tips into the ocean, California will turn red on its own, and most of the problems there will be consigned to… the deep six.

1. Here’s a simple two-step recipe for a prosperous career as a leftist intellectual.

a. Write an essay titled The Electoral College: Mend It, Don’t End It. Follow with a book.

Argue that the Electoral College should be revamped with electors representing the classes of multicultural identity politics.

b. Hire an assistant to screen the flood of job offers from elite universities, foundations, and think tanks.

2. After coming up with the above title, I did a due-diligence google for electoral college mend it don’t end it. I was amazed to get three million hits—and the very first one was Sabato posting at Kos.

Our host nailed it: “Rigging” the electoral system only is bad when it hurts Democrats.

Florida House Speaker Will Weatherford (R):
“I don’t think we need to change the rules of the game, I think we need to get better.”
http://wonkette.com/498375/breaking-florida-republicans-dont-want-to-steal-the-white-house

Isn’t it convenient how cheaters who are in favor of this scheme… only seem to want it implemented in blue states they’re currently losing.

Henry Hawkins | January 25, 2013 at 4:31 pm

Let me know when folks are ready for an armed takeover of the country. I’m no dictator, just lazy.

Sabato wants us to embrace a future of serfdom. I say we fight that with every tool available.

[…] The beauty in these plans is that they’re constitutional, and they could make it more difficult for radical leftists like President Obama to win elections in the future. Law professor William Jacobson explains: […]

TeaPartyPatriot4ever | January 26, 2013 at 3:31 am

Electoral College are number of delegates appointed to a candidate, after the votes have been tabulated / counted. Thus counting of the Electoral College delegates is incumbent on the number of votes received to a specific candidate.

quote-
“Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.”
Joseph Stalin

“Vote Fraud – What They Aren’t Telling You!”
By Jake Martinez on November 7, 2012

“Do our votes count during any election?”
quote-

“There was vote fraud in the March 1996 primary when I ran as a Republican against the nitwit incumbent, Congressman Wally Herger. Just one of the many things that happened: While I was legally on the ballot, in the largest county in the district, my name didn’t even appear on the ballot in one of the biggest precincts! When all was said and done, the Secretary of State, Republican Bill Jones, refused to investigate and in his short, terse letter to me said if I didn’t like the outcome of the election, sue the state. By that time, the vote had been certified and it was all over. At that point I realized the “Grand Old Party” wasn’t interested in the truth or fair elections, the party was over, I kissed the GOP good bye and have never regretted my decision.”

“The Real Fraud Is Inside The Machines: “How can tens of thousands of these independent voting machines in tens of thousands of separate locations possibly be manipulated without involving tens of thousands of people?….The bombshell from O’Halloran’s article is that these hidden modems are accessible by remote cell phone technology. In other words, these voting machines can be accessed and manipulated from a central super computer without a phone line connected to the wall, and without the local precinct workers knowing that anything is happening at all.”


“Voting machine fails inspection”
By Robert Lemos – CNET News

Quote-
“University researchers delivered a serious blow to the current crop of electronic voting systems in an analysis of one such system’s source code in which they concluded that a voter could cast unlimited ballots without detection.”

quote-
“What can be done?”

“We must have paper ballots that are marked with a black felt pen that are then put into a clear plastic box that sits in everyone’s view until time to count. The count must take place in front of anyone who wants to watch. This will accomplish a number of things:

1. With a plain, sturdy paper ballot, using a black felt pen, there can be no mistakes about chads or other diversions. If someone makes a mistake, they can either X it out clearly and remark their choice, or bad ballots would be shredded right there in front of everyone and a new ballot issued.

2. All ballots placed in a clear plastic box that never leaves the precinct so they can be lost, stolen or stuffed behind closed doors; neither will anyone be able to alter the ballots. After the count, the boxes would then be escorted by the county sheriff and deputies to the county clerk’s office for secured storage in the event a recount is requested. The process now means you vote, put the ballot in a cardboard box, walk out the door and never know what happened to your ballot after that. I know what happened with mine in the 1996 primary; it was a joke, a open invitation for fraud.

3. Break down the precincts. No more than 20,000 voters per precinct so that hand counting is manageable, accurate and time effective. There are more than enough volunteers in this country who want fair and impartial elections to assist on election day. In 2000, up in Canada with tens of millions of votes to count by hand, it was done and finished in less than 24 hours. Where there’s a will there’s a way. Paper ballots, hand counted in the precinct in front of anyone who wants to watch is the only way to ensure fair and impartial elections, period.”
unquote

[…] I’ve gone into this before, but everything about this looks bad. It’s not that it’s unconstitutional or illegal in any fashion, but the image is about as horrible as you can get. Granted… this could work. It might even win a presidential election which repeated recent patterns for the Democrats. But at what cost? It seems as if both sides are rushing to either justify or condemn this without any long term consideration. For example, Professor Jacobson. […]

Raquel Pinkbullet | January 26, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Typical RINO whining. The LEFT is effectively perpetuating a large scale voter fraud operation as PART of their campaign, and us conservatives as usual always have to “play nice” don’t cause waves. When will conservatives LEARN that the LEFT does not play nice. And if we are to win, we have to get in to the gutter with them. It’s sad, but it’s REALITY.

[…] Democratic political analyst Larry Sabato had this to say: […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend