Guess who I guess isn't allowed to vote in Ohio

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:42 pm

Massage...Bored wrote:
bassjones wrote:

How many dead Democrats are registering to vote again this year????

Laughable!

And that sh*t is well documented as happening in Ohio this year. Already registered voters receiving a letter telling them they ae a registered Republican when they themselves claim they are clearly not.

As is the practice of Dead Democrats voting in Illinois (won the election for JFK - look it up) - and in Ohio in 2000. There were far more reports of Democrats registering unregisterable people (famous names, dead people, aliases for convicts, etc...) and you can look that up as well.

Massage...Bored · Post by **Massage...Bored** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 5:45 pm

bassjones wrote:As is the practice of Dead Democrats voting in Illinois (won the election for JFK - look it up) - and in Ohio in 2000. There were far more reports of Democrats registering unregisterable people (famous names, dead people, aliases for convicts, etc...) and you can look that up as well.

I'm not talking about any of that sh*t, I'm referring to Jericho's situation right now. I'm being topical, thanks for the sh*zz, as always.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:48 pm

I think we've had this conversation before, but:

Yes, your vote is much more important in local elections.

And as much as the Electoral College sucks, without it, your vote REALLY wouldn't count.

To win a presidential election without the EC, a candidate would just have to travel to New York City, LA, Chicago, Dallas/Ft Worth, Philadelphia, and maybe Boston and Miami. They would just have to promise these major city-dwellers the moon, (or heck, jsut give them coupons for free beer, pizza, and DVD's for 4 years.), and they would get enough votes from the major metros to win the election. Us folks here in flyover country would REALLY be forgotten. I mean, moreso than we are now.

A possible remedy is the National Bonus Plan: The winnner of the popular vote would receive an additional 102 electoral votes. There would be no more 'win the popular / lose the electoral' any more.

Oliver's Army · Post by **Oliver's Army** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 8:01 pm

why 102 votes?

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 11:15 pm

2 for each state.

diethyl · Post by **diethyl** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:33 am

bassjones wrote:........aliases for convicts, etc...) and you can look that up as well.

Most states have repealed all laws regarding voting rights for felons. So I really doubt if that's a serious issue.

WBOB · Post by **WBOB** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:34 am

=^-..-^= wrote:I think we've had this conversation before, but:

Yes, your vote is much more important in local elections.

And as much as the Electoral College sucks, without it, your vote REALLY wouldn't count.

To win a presidential election without the EC, a candidate would just have to travel to New York City, LA, Chicago, Dallas/Ft Worth, Philadelphia, and maybe Boston and Miami. They would just have to promise these major city-dwellers the moon, (or heck, jsut give them coupons for free beer, pizza, and DVD's for 4 years.), and they would get enough votes from the major metros to win the election. Us folks here in flyover country would REALLY be forgotten. I mean, moreso than we are now.

A possible remedy is the National Bonus Plan: The winnner of the popular vote would receive an additional 102 electoral votes. There would be no more 'win the popular / lose the electoral' any more.

Not sure if it passed yet,... but very recently in California, the governator
had on his desk a bill that would cast their Electoral College votes to
the winner of the Popular vote in a Presidential election.
The problem is that this backdoors the U.S. Constitution.

=^-..-^= · Post by **=^-..-^=** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:33 pm

I'm gonna' have to reread the Constitution to see if they can really do that without an Amendment.

Thinking out loud here - if every state did that, would it solve the 'win the popular/ lose the electoral' problem?