QuoteMy main objective is to somehow get questions raised about our electoral voting system.  It needs  to be kicked to the curb.

Why?  The Founders set it up this way for a good reason.  Everytime we try to fix their "mistakes" we end up worse off (like electing Senators by popular vote--BIG mistake!)

Look into WHY they set things up the way they did, and you'll change your mind, I believe.  It was to protect the Republic from the "Low Information Voter"  Making voting TOO easy for the uninformed masses is one of the concerns they had.

QuoteThe Founders did not want the nation's chief executive to be chosen directly by all the people but indirectly by electors, who at least in theory would be the most enlightened and unbiased citizens. The Founders fashioned a republic, not a pure democracy, even though they regarded the consent of the governed as the bedrock of the system.  http://www.teachablemoment.org/teachablemoment.org/high/electoralsystem.html

Ok, that's reasonable.  But, how do we keep voter confidence on the upswing?  It is of great curiosity to me that the better and easier anything is made for people to partake of, thus making their lives better, that there's always a group of neer'-do-wells that take unfair advantage and disrupt whatever good would have been done.  How do we know that the vote was fair this time?  There's ample reason to suggest that it wasn't fair. 

Quote from: keyboarder on December 04, 2012, 02:58:54 PM
Ok, that's reasonable.  But, how do we keep voter confidence on the upswing?  It is of great curiosity to me that the better and easier anything is made for people to partake of, thus making their lives better, that there's always a group of neer'-do-wells that take unfair advantage and disrupt whatever good would have been done.  How do we know that the vote was fair this time?  There's ample reason to suggest that it wasn't fair.

I was listening to Glenn Beck yesterday at work. For what it's worth, he said that they, and others, had put considerable effort into uncovering cheating and voter fraud during the election. His bottom line was, that it happened, but not to the extent that it put Obama in the winner's circle.

As sad as it is, lots of republicans stayed home. And who knows how many libertarians cast protest votes for people that would never win?

Then how do you explain the difference in turnout at the rallys between thew Obama crowds and Obamas?  They say we were "shell shocked" and that describes it perfectly. I still haven't recovered because I can't explain it any other way, but the GOP seems too willing to just let it go.

All these people showed up in support for Romney but then just stayed home on election night?????

Exactly, Yawn and good morning to you and Krama!

Remember what happened when Gore was upset by Bush?  What a mess that was but it was Dems that clammored for recounts and the like that time.  It just gets worse each voting period.  It's like one side loses, claims fraud, finally cedes and silently vows to "get back" the next time. 

Low-Information voters?

Oh, you  mean Democrats!

We have already been shown a model that works, and works very well - Ronald Reagan!

The more things change, the more things stay the same!

Bold Colors - No Pale Pastels

The problem isn't the "voter" its the candidate!

QuoteThe problem isn't the "voter" its the candidate!

No, it's the voter alright. Because they are often uninformed about things, any reasonably informed citizen should be aware of. Quite simply, over the decades the right has allowed the left to define the debate. For example, right now in the "fiscal cliff debate", all we hear is debate about taxes on "the wealthy". BUT the income tax, taxes INCOME not WEALTH. Eimply having a great deal of paper wealth - let's say the paper value of the stocks you own - doesn't say anything about whether you have a lot, or a little, income. Why hasn't anyone brought up the simple question of what percentage of the tax burden the "1%" should bear? Shouldn't it mirror the percentage of the overall taxable income they receive? It's these points - which the right seems reluctant to educate the public on - that never seem to be raised.

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 05, 2012, 06:21:20 AM
Low-Information voters?

Oh, you  mean Democrats!

We have already been shown a model that works, and works very well - Ronald Reagan!

The more things change, the more things stay the same!

Bold Colors - No Pale Pastels

The problem isn't the "voter" its the candidate!

Man he hit the nail on the head, even today the RINO are the antithesis of the message, they are the enemy within, the capitulates to the leftists.
They need to go. 

The low information voters-----How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters

Good video, but these aren't the people I call "Low Information Voters."  These are cult followers that can't be reached.

I'm talking about my sister who has always worked 2 jobs to support her family and just has other things going on besides following the news.  I'm talking about my elderly mother who watches tv for entertainment and reads fiction.  I'm talking about the average American who just doesn't seek out the real news or any alternative to ABC, NBC, CBS but senses that SOMETHING IS WRONG but hasn't FULLY TURNED against this man on the WH.  THESE people can be turned.  We can all turn ONE by 2014.

Strategy= Disenfrachisement. Just saying. You cant do both.

Quote from: jksr1 on December 06, 2012, 07:13:36 AM
Strategy= Disenfrachisement. Just saying. You cant do both.

So, since Obama ran a very strategic (and successful) campaign, that means his goal was to disenfranchise a vast majority of Republican and Conservative voters?

Well, since Republican voter turnout was vastly lower than it was in even 2004, it looks like Obama's strategic plan of disenfranchising Republican voters was largely successful!

Quote from: Darth Fife on December 06, 2012, 07:17:18 AM
So, since Obama ran a very strategic (and successful) campaign, that means his goal was to disenfranchise a vast majority of Republican and Conservative voters?

Well, since Republican voter turnout was vastly lower than it was in even 2004, it looks like Obama's strategic plan of disenfranchising Republican voters was largely successful!

I see it 360.