2 On Jun 2, 10:40 am, Tryan Hartill wrote:

Only a complete investigation by federal authorities can determine the full extent of any bribery and vote rigging that has taken place.

Somehow I don’t think this will do much. Wouldn’t this give oversight to the ones that wanted the voting system in the first place?

My main issue with all this is the Feds paying for elections and therefore deciding how we vote and what machines we use. This should not happen. I’m not sure if people are ever going to wake up from American Idol and Desparate Housewives, in order to see this power-grab we are seeing from the Feds.

4 On Jun 2, 10:24 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

Have y’all ever read the Founders reasoning behind the Electoral College? That part of the Constitution is specifically designed to “balance” the popular vote. In other words, the Electoral College is under no obligation to follow the popular vote.

What does that mean? It means, if you want the president to be elected by popular vote, you need a Constitutional amendment to do away with the Electoral College. Until then, talk about vote stealing/tampering really is useless.

In fact, there is no reason to even have an Electoral College today. It was necessary when it took weeks for the representatives to travel to the nation’s capital to cast the vote of their constituents. But that can all be done in a matter of minutes, with today’s technology.

But on the subject of tampering with electronic ballots … why aren’t the manufacturers doing something about it?!? All it would take is a fingerprint scanner. And they could advertise to the public that their machines are “safe” – and the public would put pressure on the gov’t to only use “safe” machines. Well, perhaps. Given the mass apathy of the American public towards their voting duty, perhaps the masses don’t give a damn about vote fraud since they think it really doesn’t matter which party wins anyway.

6 On Jun 3, 03:04 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

“... IF they want the grant money” – That’s the key. States can buy whatever machines they want, IF they are willing to turn down the federal money. Come to think of it, isn’t that like a bribe? Buy this, and we’ll give you money.

And I believe there’s only 1 (perhaps 2) states that have fair Electoral Colleges. Those are the states that allow their EC vote to be split by popular vote. Given that very few candidates can get even 50% of the eligible popular vote, due to 3rd parties and non-voters, it doesn’t make sense to give all EC votes to a candidate just because they got the most votes in the state. Here’s my ideal EC … their votes are split, based not just on popular vote, but also on percentage of eligible voters.

Example: Say 50% of the voters choose not to vote. That means the state immediately loses 50% of its EC vote. Rounded to the nearest whole vote, of course. IF the EC members are required by law TO cast a ballot – that 50% would cast “none of the above”, which is a legitimate vote.

Don’t worry about an election where neither candidate gets enough EC votes to win. It’s happened before, and the Constitution says it goes to Congress to decide who wins. Personally, I’d hope for just that to happen. It’s one of the few things that would wake up the parties.

Plus, states with lower populations … but higher voter turnout per capita … would find their EC votes suddenly become more important in presidential elections than states with higher populations and low voter turnout per capita.