Yes, it’s a terrible idea:
People should have to vote in person on paper ballots, after showing ID, and then get their thumbs dyed blue. You know, like they do elsewhere in the world where standards are higher.
Funny how this is one area where the Left doesn’t want us to be like other countries.
Care of Project Veritas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4XK8DGeWgU
But lib/dem/soccies will tell us that voter fraud is a myth. Well here’s a Democrat telling you otherwise…an election commissioner.
I can tell you that Washington State is rife with fraud thanks to mail in ballots.
And while we do have to show ID at the time of registration, Washington gives driver’s licenses to noncitizens. Also, this link says you don’t need ID if you register through mail or in person.
https://weiapplets.sos.wa.gov/MyVoteOLVR/MyVoteOLVR
The honor system works when you have an honorable populace. But when we have a populace that produces Hillary and Trump…
Right now, I’d take dipping finger in ink, and I’m a regular early voter, so ink that’s not likely to wear off in 2 weeks time.
There will absolutely be (and already has been) voter fraud. We need to fight this in every case that matters. PA seems to be one of the most critical.
The paper ballot is the best option because it leaves a record. You can recount the votes later if you want. Plus its not as easy to commit vote fraud with it. It’s not perfect but its the best we have.
It would be nice to have a faster method of voting though. I’m a proponent of Athenian style e-democracy. I don’t think delegating the power of taking important decisions to our “better others” for 4 years is a good idea in the first place. Which I’m sure you disagree with since you like the representative republic as it is. Well I don’t.
But if it’s to change the current system the changes should be gradual.
Vote by internet?
It’s easy to commit fraud with paper ballots if a box of ballots of uncertain provenance is “found” and allowed to be mixed in. Or if a partisan terrorist group closes down a polling place for awhile to stuff the ballot box. But those are separate problems.
As for online voting, that makes it very hard to both verify who is voting and preserve the secret ballot. And there WILL be abuses if corrupt officials can trace how you voted.
Umm, just to make sure I understand – the post isn’t sarcasm?
No, it is not. The Founders never intended that the president be elected by popular vote. It is one of the many ways in which we are supposed to be a republic (as Franklin said), not a democracy.
Isn’t the idea behind being a republic rather than a democracy to ensure that only the very best people get as far as being serious contenders for the Presidency?
Yes, it is. What is happening, with a serial felon not even being indicted, and the clown show on the Republican side, is an indication that the Republic is seriously broken.
Yes, this is what you get when you go to a pure democracy– the choice between a loud clown or the head of a crime family.
Why isn’t the Left pushing for the NPV project this year? (Where states ignore their own voters intent and cast their Electoral College votes for the national popular vote winner.)
Personally, if it must be Rodham, I’d love to see a fair number of “faithless” Dem EC voters. But you can guarantee that those are people like Patrick Moynihan, for when it comes time to vote, they’ll vote party line very time.
“Yes, this is what you get when you go to a pure democracy– the choice between a loud clown or the head of a crime family.”
What are you talking about? The US does not have “a pure democracy” not even close. No country is run via a pure democratic system.
“A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a sovereign state or country which is organized with a form of government in which power resides in elected individuals representing the citizen body and government leaders exercise power according to the rule of law.”
The US would still be a republic if the president was elected by popular vote. “Democracy” used to mean a system of direct democracy, these days the term is used to refer to the representative democracy used in governing nations, so there’s really no difference between modern day republic and democratic nations.
There are though differences in the electoral systems used, in my opinion the US and other countries using FPTP electoral systems rather than more representative systems are getting more divisive partisan leadership.
It wouldn’t be the Republic that the Founders intended.
Article 2 section 1″ . . . and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.”
Am I reading that right? If neither of the main two candidates gained a clear majority, the House of representatives could select the President from amongst the top contenders? In theory if both Hillary and Donald were to be unpalatable to a majority in the House a third contender could be selected by the House as President?
Yes.
Interestingly, polling in Nevada indicates that Evan McMullin could win that state, and the presidency. And he’d be a much better choice than either of them, because who wouldn’t?
Moreover, as noted, the House decision is voted on not by the representatives, but the state delegations (per the idea that the president is supposed to be selected by the states). Republicans have a majority of those. So it would be either Trump or McMullin.