Clinton Urged to Call For Recount After Suspected Vote Tampering And/Or Hacking

[mickybrighteyes]

I've read this twice, and it makes less sense than when I started. Wtf is your point?

You said you want the USA to have a more 'modern' voting system.

You're modern idea is simply majority rules from what I understand. 1 vote = 1 vote and whoever gets the most votes wins. No mumbo jumbo about different regions being weighted differently and shit or anything like the EC giving smaller/less populated areas a effectively larger impact on the outcome.

So it's 1 for 1 majority rules... the system that has been around for as long as people began to understand numbers and groups. Not exactly 'modern'

[Adolecent]

I think you should read less tabloids and conspiracy theory websites.

Calling mainstream independent media in the EU (and US) "tabloids" or "conspiracy theory websites" might be popular to "call-horn" but it is and will remain unfounded untill it's proven. You thinking that Putin is helping Trump, and other populists, "for free" is never the less very naive.

Btw, if you want to form an opinion it's much better to think for yourself while using information that comes from multiple sources around the globe.

[jdbond592]

Did dems manage to change whole filibuster thing in Senate? Beware what you wish for. This election was close, Trump's win or not. It would not be hard to turn many battleground states come 2020. Only lasting damage to come out of this election would be SC nomination and if you are rich, it is good news on top of more good news;_

[mickybrighteyes]

He is saying that your notion that the EC is "outdated" makes little sense when the EC is dynamic, and what you propose is simple arithmetic. Simple math isn't necessarily "more modern" than a dynamic system like the EC.

boom.

[Easo]

We are massively larger than every country you have. We might have more landmass than your entire continent, if you exclude Russia. It would be akin to voting for the leader of the EU, not each country. Wait, do you guys even get to vote on that at all?

India has close to 4 times your population, yet they have popular vote, if I am correct. Size is not an issue - they are large (7th in the world), and while not as big as States, still as diverse as you.

No, there is no "real" leader of EU, each country votes for their representatives in European Parliament.

[cubby]

You said you want the USA to have a more 'modern' voting system.

You're modern idea is simply majority rules from what I understand. 1 vote = 1 vote and whoever gets the most votes wins. No mumbo jumbo about different regions being weighted differently and shit or anything like the EC giving smaller/less populated areas a effectively larger impact on the outcome.

So it's 1 for 1 majority rules... the system that has been around for as long as people began to understand numbers and groups. Not exactly 'modern'

He is saying that your notion that the EC is "outdated" makes little sense when the EC is dynamic, and what you propose is simple arithmetic. Simple math isn't necessarily "more modern" than a dynamic system like the EC.

Um, yeah - 1 for 1 voting has been around forever. That wasn't the "modern" part of my point. Gotta read the whole post guys.

Modernizing is the OTHER two points I made - 100% mail ballots and the Single-Transferable-Ballot are the "modern" parts.

[Sykol]

Evidence? Cos I hear you lot talk alot about biased infractions and shit, but you can never back it up. Spineless pack that you are. As soon as you can't find any arguments, you cry bloody murder and conspiracy and start insulting people personally. When you get infracted, because douches do get infracted since they can never control their potty mouth, you call it biased. Pathetic bunch of losers. What up? You gonna cry now? Here, have a tissue...

Considering you didn't get infracted for trying to fit mod dicks in your mouth like they were billiard balls while insulting people, I think I have my evidence.

[Puremallace]

Jill Stein expected to file paperwork for a recount in Wisconsin on Friday

[Elegiac]

He is saying that your notion that the EC is "outdated" makes little sense when the EC is dynamic, and what you propose is simple arithmetic. Simple math isn't necessarily "more modern" than a dynamic system like the EC.

Hear me out, dude.

One of the crucial things the United States is lacking at present is ability to overcome the sectional divisions that are cropping up between urban and rural, coast and interior. Scrapping the electoral college and replacing it with a system designed to ensure broad popular appeal - say, runoff or preferential - is very likely to work towards that end.

[mickybrighteyes]

Um, yeah - 1 for 1 voting has been around forever. That wasn't the "modern" part of my point. Gotta read the whole post guys.

Modernizing is the OTHER two points I made - 100% mail ballots and the Single-Transferable-Ballot are the "modern" parts.

mail in ballot is simply changing how your vote reaches the big box of counting... NOT NEW. cool instead of walking to a secured location set up for the event, you hand it to an overworked and underpaid individual to carry it around for awhile. OR use a silly system set up that does exactly the same thing we currently do.

the transferable one... meh. cool vote for multiple people and introduce more math to slow down the counting process to determine who actually gets the most votes.

you're not sounding very new or modern but pretty good at finding new ways to introduce variables to tamper with.

edit:

you're polling station may or may not be exactly 'secured' by your standards, but they are set up in a way to make the act of voting seem secure enough in that your vote in your region is counted accurately.

[cubby]

Instead of wasting time and resources now, they should focus in changing the election process for the future. But, obviously, no one really wants to change the EC votes, because could be of their advantage someday...

You can't change the election process now, even if you wanted to - the moves being made/proposed now are within the current environs. And there's is almost no chance of it being changed in the future because of the Amendment process.

[Elegiac]

mail in ballot is simply changing how your vote reaches the big box of counting... NOT NEW. cool instead of walking to a secured location set up for the event, you hand it to an overworked and underpaid individual to carry it around for awhile. OR use a silly system set up that does exactly the same thing we currently do.

Which is more than made up for the fact that more people are capable of voting, and they can take their time making choices.

the transferable one... meh. cool vote for multiple people and introduce more math to slow down the counting process to determine who actually gets the most votes.

Which ensures that any given candidate has a popular mandate. You don't get people being elected to office with 37% of the vote with a preferential system.

you're not sounding very new or modern but pretty good at finding new ways to introduce variables to tamper with.

Preferential voting is a fairly recent innovation in modern democracies, and by all accounts voters are generally far more satisfied and thus invested politically.

[cubby]

mail in ballot is simply changing how your vote reaches the big box of counting... NOT NEW. cool instead of walking to a secured location set up for the event, you hand it to an overworked and underpaid individual to carry it around for awhile. OR use a silly system set up that does exactly the same thing we currently do.

the transferable one... meh. cool vote for multiple people and introduce more math to slow down the counting process to determine who actually gets the most votes.

you're not sounding very new or modern but pretty good at finding new ways to introduce variables to tamper with.

edit:

you're polling station may or may not be exactly 'secured' by your standards, but they are set up in a way to make the act of voting seem secure enough in that your vote in your region is counted accurately.

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, those two would be a very modern move, nationally, for the United States. I appreciate that you missed my point initially and now have that forum backlash-out feeling in which, instead of admitting a small error, you have to post more anger because why bother being nice, right?

Only one state in the country does mail in ballots 100% - and they just moved to that system this past year. The Single-Transferable-Ballot would be completely new for the United States, and would be almost impossible to explain to a good portion of the voting population.

Both of which are the best choices, according to experts, for eliminating variables to tamper with. Just fyi.

[Xires]

Got a source for that?... other than the usual rightwing bias sites.

Was all over CNN and msnbc...you know ...the left wing bias sites. #Googleisyourfriend

[Tijuana]

Hear me out, dude.

One of the crucial things the United States is lacking at present is ability to overcome the sectional divisions that are cropping up between urban and rural, coast and interior. Scrapping the electoral college and replacing it with a system designed to ensure broad popular appeal - say, runoff or preferential - is very likely to work towards that end.

I can see why some would think that. The base idea has merits. I don't subscribe to the notion that there are only pros or only cons in any controversial issue. That is what partisan hacks do.

However, consider this. If you eliminate only California votes, Trump won in one of the biggest popular vote land slides in quite some time. Are the voters of California so important that they alone should decide our presidents? Of course that is hyperbole but, I offer it as the hyperbolic answer to "Wyoming votes counting more than California votes".

There are four realities at play here, however. These make the whole point moot.

One, BOTH candidates knew the rules and attempted to win under the rules. Trump would have campaigned very differently, and so would have Hillary. These popular vote results mean nothing in the debate. Literally nothing.

Two, the proposed solution is politically disadvantageous to Republicans, who just so happen to control 44 of the 50 state legislatures, of which you need 75% of to agree to this.

Three, the proposed solution could not even be voted upon in the house or senate, due to Republican control.

Four, the proposed solution, even if it were to pass both bodies of congress, would have to be enacted by Trump, the very man that benefited from the system. Good luck with that.

And lastly, blindly tearing down centuries old balances of power, in the most powerful nation in history, is risky, to say the least. This would require much thought, and I don't see it ever going your way, sorry.

[mickybrighteyes]

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, those two would be a very modern move, nationally, for the United States. I appreciate that you missed my point initially and now have that forum backlash-out feeling in which, instead of admitting a small error, you have to post more anger because why bother being nice, right?

I would continue to respond but the presumption of myself posting in anger... such projection very wow... also Ref take it away.


- - - Updated - - -

Preferential voting is a fairly recent innovation in modern democracies, and by all accounts voters are generally far more satisfied and thus invested politically.

still that posters track record on 'modern ideas' was lower than what constitutes a popular vote win margin in the USA. under 50% and I can't state the majority of their point was exactly what they were claiming.

[Xires]

Which is more than made up for the fact that more people are capable of voting, and they can take their time making choices.



Which ensures that any given candidate has a popular mandate. You don't get people being elected to office with 37% of the vote with a preferential system.



Preferential voting is a fairly recent innovation in modern democracies, and by all accounts voters are generally far more satisfied and thus invested politically.

Our system works just fine. The Electoral college gives each state a voice. Look at how few county's actually voted for Clinton. Those county's have massive populations(with massive crimes). A handful of counties and states should not be able to decide this nations future. Without it literally 5-6 states would always decide the vote. Instead we go by state level and award electoral votes via popular state vote. This way everyone in every state has a voice. Liberals of course can't get behind that concept because the only people they want to have a voice are other liberals and illegals.

[Elegiac]

I can see why some would think that. The base idea has merits. I don't subscribe to the notion that there are only pros or only cons in any controversial issue. That is what partisan hacks do.

However, consider this. If you eliminate only California votes, Trump won in one of the biggest popular vote land slides in quite some time. Are the voters of California so important that they alone should decide our presidents? Of course that is hyperbole but, I offer it as the hyperbolic answer to "Wyoming votes counting more than California votes".

There are four realities at play here, however. These make the whole point moot.

One, BOTH candidates knew the rules and attempted to win under the rules. Trump would have campaigned very differently, and so would have Hillary. These popular vote results mean nothing in the debate. Literally nothing.

Two, the proposed solution is politically disadvantageous to Republicans, who just so happen to control 44 of the 50 state legislatures, of which you need 75% of to agree to this.

Three, the proposed solution could not even be voted upon in the house or senate, due to Republican control.

Four, the proposed solution, even if it were to pass both bodies of congress, would have to be enacted by Trump, the very man that benefited from the system. Good luck with that.

And lastly, blindly tearing down centuries old balances of power, in the most powerful nation in history, is risky, to say the least. This would require much thought, and I don't see it ever going your way, sorry.

Why should California voters decide? Simple; they aren't - social cohesion is not maintained by looking at it as a 'by state' issue when it comes to something like the head of state.

And I'm aware it's highly unlikely for the forseeable future given Republican intransigence and the fact the system is designed to benefit rural states rather than the urban ones. But at some point something has to give, if the United States as a union is going to survive - or else, chances are, the big states might just walk.

- - - Updated - - -

Our system works just fine.

If public satisfaction with the system is what constitutes 'working', then no, it isn't.

The Electoral college gives each state a voice. Look at how few county's actually voted for Clinton. Those county's have massive populations(with massive crimes). A handful of counties and states should not be able to decide this nations future. Without it literally 5-6 states would always decide the vote. Instead we go by state level and award electoral votes via popular state vote. This way everyone in every state has a voice. Liberals of course can't get behind that concept because the only people they want to have a voice are other liberals and illegals.

Yeah, it's so awful that liberals want everyone's vote to be equal to everyone else's.

And no, 'every state' doesn't get a voice; at the moment you have five or six swing states deciding the election and everyone else be damned. At this rate the only thing that's going to resolve the problem is Texas going blue.

[Xires]

False votes were generated for Trump.

No they were generated for Clinton and only Clinton. It was even on your left wing news sites so I don't know how you missed it.

[cubby]

I would continue to respond but the presumption of myself posting in anger... such projection very wow... also Ref take it away.


- - - Updated - - -



still that posters track record on 'modern ideas' was lower than what constitutes a popular vote win margin in the USA. under 50% and I can't state the majority of their point was exactly what they were claiming.

This is what I mean - just have a conversation, you don't have to be a douche bag about it. For the record, it was 66% - and that's assuming you actually thought 1 for 1 would be a "modern" idea from anyone. Which is ludicrous.

Mail-in balloting is fairly new to the US.
Preferential ballots are very new.

I'd love to actually hear your thoughts rather than argue about "modern" until the end of time. Could we just do that?