Reply With Quote
deadduck.jpg
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...lectoral-fraud
But electoral experts and media fact-checkers have rejected his claims as based on false assumptions, a discredited study that relied on internet respondents, or simply an exaggerated version of the truth: that the number of verified instances of voter fraud since the year 2000 likely come out to less than three dozen, as per a 2014 count by Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who is now serving as the Justice Department's top lawyer for its civil rights division.
The ascendance of such claims, factual or not, might also merit a look at how US elections used to operate, and the late 19th- and early 20th-century shifts that improved the process: chiefly, ballot reforms that made votes secret, and electoral reforms that took the whole process out of the control of political parties and handed it off to state governments.
Through the 1880s, when elections were still purely a party affair, fraud was a fairly common custom. "Political corruption at the time included such practices as the payment of voters, candidates required to pay parties in order to have their names placed on lists of preferred candidates, [and] stuffing ballot boxes with votes by non-existent voters," University of Colorado political scientist E. Scott Adler wrote in 2010.
And parties supervised the whole affair. "Party operatives could watch you vote. They were the ones printing up ballots, so they knew how you voted," says Erik Engstrom, a University of California-Davis political scientist who studies US ins utions and parties, in an interview with The Christian Science Monitor.
In 1888, the city of Louisville adopted the secret ballot, as part of a backlash to partisan corruption and electoral fraud. The measure spread quickly to other states, spearheaded by Progressive reformers scandalized by how party machines operated – particularly in urban areas transformed by a massive influx of immigrants. Meanwhile, as parties increasingly found themselves unable to run elections where 80 to 90 percent of a diverse, newly urbanized electorate routinely turned out, state governments took over responsibility.
deadduck.jpg
They have won three of the last five presidential elections despite winning the popular vote only once. And yet they'll govern on a ing mandate. draining the swamp, just go burn DC down.
Cankles is only "winning" the popular vote by a little over 230,000 votes. Not like that matters, anyway. The electoral votes are the only numbers that count.
we're aware of that. lol electoral college. lol senate. lol "state votes"
The vote totals compared to 2012 tell the story tbh
Obama 2012 (65.9M) > Romney 2012 (60.9M) > Clinton 2016 (59.9M) > Trump 2016 (59.6M)
Despite all the talk of high turnout, less people voted at the top of the ballot for the 2 main parties. Shillary got 6M less votes than Obama, despite running a $2B operation and having both sides of the establishment rooting for her. People were basically put off by the 2 repellent options.
Hillary won the popular vote by a larger margin that Gore in 2000.
Repug voter suppression was successful, eg, blacks spending a lot longer waiting to vote than whites due to Repug-reduced voting places.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
