Reply With Quote
Dem elections history sez so
if you say so
Dem elections history sez so
Spurraider listens to am radio
Nope, but you'll have to explain how this is open for abuse. By your definition, the electoral college is ripe for abuse of power.
what definition did i give?
The definition that it is open for abuse of power since a small group of people can theoretically cancel out the will of regular voters. That's exactly what the electoral college can theoretically do, so you must think it is also open for abuse.
Unless you are contradicting yourself, which would be understandable.
the superdelegates in the primary are quite different than the electors in the general election, though.
in the general election, the people vote for electors, who are then fully expected to vote a certain way (the number of "faithless" electors is incredibly small, historically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithl...000_to_present ). nobody votes for superdelegates
Actually, hundreds of them are elected.
they are elected into office as other positions. you know exactly what i meant
While this is true, the general election is a vote for different parties, wheres primary elections are elections within a party. While that sounds obvious, it should then also be obvious that it makes complete sense (even if it's perceived as unfair) that the party has full control of the rules and the candidate selection system in the primaries. Every candidate knew from the get go what the rules are and nothing prevented them from not running through that party and system and instead going through their own independent party (cue the complaints about the overall system being rigged towards two parties, which is a fair criticism, IMO).
oh, i'm aware the parties run the show. they're allowed to help rig their elections as much as they want, tbh
Actually with the superdelegates its very obvious and not openended. You sound like boutox with his fatalism.
again, i never said it wasn't obvious or was a secret
I didn't say you were boutox. I said you sounded like him with your fatalism. Youre saying that some group of DNC leaders can rig the election how they want. There is nothing out in the open to support that notion.
I suppose they both fall under the large "shady practices interfering with the democratic process" but this is hardly as broadly impactful as gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and other tactics by Republicans to suppress or manipulate voting results.
I don't know what specific voter ID laws you mean, but why shouldn't I need an ID to vote? I need an ID to drive, to go to the doctor, to get a library card, to get on a plane, to sign up for community classes, to sign my kids up for soccer or swimming classes, to register my kids in school, to sign them out of school for appointments, etc. How can they be sure that people are who they say they are and aren't double or triple voting?
There's been a recent study do enting how this harms the demographics most likely to vote Dem: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...oter-id-paper/
Do you think it is fair that a student ID is not an acceptable form of identification but a concealed carry permit is just fine? https://newrepublic.com/article/1199...ot-student-ids
Ask yourself: who are students most likely to vote for and who are people packing heat most likely to vote for? This is blatant voter suppression.
In 2012, the PA republican house leader actually admitted to the purpose of voter ID laws: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...romney-to-win/
It's really unfortunate that in this day and age we still don't have a Cons utional amendment that affirmatively grants the right to vote.
That would clean up a lot of this mess.
Rigging is a strong insinuation. "Making it appear as though casting your vote on any DNC party outsider is futile and frivolous" would be more aptly put. Presentation is everything in a campaign.
In order for one to get a concealed carry permit, one probably has to go through a background check or at the very least - be 18 years old. A student does not have to be 18 in order to get a student ID and all that's listed is what school you go to, your name and your grade (for high school). For college student ids, I assume there's no grade but there can be very young kids in college (15, 16 and definitely 17 year olds). There's no birthdate on either high school or college student IDs. If you have to show id to buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery tickets, why wouldn't you show id to vote?
Where I am, I have to be on the voter list (in my neighborhood) and show picture ID that I'm who's on the list. That way I vote for the correct representative, council member, etc. I can't vote wherever I want - across county lines, outside my district, etc.
My husband's concealed weapon license has his address and birthdate on it. Student ids have neither - nothing that says one is eligible (old enough) or in the right neighborhood - I don't know if a passport is considered proper id as that also doesn't have address on it.
My bad, if this is with a voter's registration card that I assume did some checking that one is eligible and in the right neighborhood and not by itself. And aren't some college kids not in their neighborhood and so can't vote anyways. And Texas doesn't allow absentee ballots for students, right?
Are you talking about WITH a voter's registration card? That has already checked that one is a citizen, a resident of that state and in the right neighborhood? Or voting with just the photo id by itself?
^ I'm beginning to doubt you've ever voted before.
You register to vote. Based on your address, you are assigned a precinct. When it is time to vote, you go to your precinct, give them your name and voter registration card, and they look at the registration logs. If you're on the logs, they check your name off, you go into the booth and vote. If you're not, you cannot cast a regular ballot. There is no way for one person to vote twice/thrice.
As for the voter ID suppression Republicans are running, I urge you to watch John Oliver's show from this evening (ironically enough, I had no idea he was going to do a piece on this issue tonight and I left my computer to go watch it right after I responded to you). If you don't have HBO, I'll link the piece when it is available. I hope you watch it and form your own opinion. It is blatant voter suppression, performed and supported by only one party, without any evidence of fixing non-existent "voter fraud", and open admissions that the purpose of requiring voter ID is to win elections for Republicans.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
