Vanity - Scott, Rubio, DeSantis, Mast, Florida needs voting revamp immediately!!!

Governor elect, Ron DeSantis, Senator elect, Rick Scott, Senator, Marco Rubio, Congressman, Brian Mast, the entire Florida State legislature needs to revamp the entire voting system from A-Z..period.

The first move must be the immediate firing of the two 100% incompetent and cheating Democrat Party, Election Supervisors in Broward & Palm Beach Counties.

The entire state is a waste when it comes to voting and voting controls. the state is filled withou unqualified non-citizen voters and ongoing frauds within the Mail-In, Early voting process.

I could come up to Tallahassee and fix the entire mess in one week by using any number of maodifications that are fair across the board.

As a taxpayer in Florida, the leadership, or I should say the non-leadership of both the Democrat & Republicans have cost the Taxpayers of Florida millions of wasted dollars that were thrown away without cause.

Folks in the state capital..."Get It Fixed"...like right now!!! Thank you, Senator, Marco Rubio for quickly addressing this farce that occurred in Broward & Palm Counties. The sight of these two Democrat Party incompetent hag witches is a sight to behold and all of America is laughing at us Florida fools for the idiots we are!!!

You complain about supervisors, cheating, fraud, methods.

These are the footprints. Look for the shoe.

The shoe is “democracy”. The idea that there should be no qualifications to vote other than domicile, age, and registration is a radical, absurd idea. As long as both parties agree that anyone can and should vote, and that the outcome of an election is illegitimate if we don’t “count every vote”, then it does not matter who’s in charge or how they count.

If we don’t restore minimal qualifications for voters, the USA will be down the tubes in 20 years, if it isn’t already.

Voter fraud and incompetence have been going on for decades in Florida ...

Solving the 'incompetence' problem is easy: STOP being afraid of being called a 'racist'. ... Skin color should NEVER be a pass for keeping a job done badly.

Fraud is harder.

Democrats vote the people who don't show up to vote.

It's NOT a question of getting better machines to ‘count the vote’... it's a question of keeping fraudulent ballots OUT OF THE STACK.

Voter fraud and incompetence have been going on for decades in Florida ...

Solving the 'incompetence' problem is easy: STOP being afraid of being called a 'racist'. ... Skin color should NEVER be a pass for keeping a job done badly.

Fraud is harder.

Democrats vote the people who don't show up to vote.

It's NOT a question of getting better machines to ‘count the vote’... it's a question of keeping fraudulent ballots OUT OF THE STACK.

All citizens should have the right to vote WITHOUT HAVING THEIR VOTE COMPROMISED AND DILUTED BY CRIMINALS, ILLEGALS, AND DEMOCRAT THUGS.

"My comment is: Volunteer as a poll watcher!"

Thank you for posting livius. I’m glad that you emphasized poll watchers. And they need to work in pairs or more, also side by side, to make up for us humans not having eyes in the back of our heads!

For example, regardless what pro-Democratic activist judges are saying about state picture ID voter cards, in order for states to comply with Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, voters must be citizens imo. So poll watchers need to make sure that voters present a photo ID card that the state issues only to citizens.

”14th Amendment, Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens [emphasis added] twenty-one years of age in such State."
Apportionment of representation in House of Representatives

Attempts to get them to comply are met with claims of “voter suppression” which are amplified by the press.

. . . which simply emphasizes that without reform of journalism, nothing else will have a big effect. Journalism reform is mandatory and, fortunately, possible. Give SCOTUS the right case, and it can do it.

"But wouldn’t that run afoul of the Constitution? What about the First Amendment?”

My answer is that 1A intends to assure that the people will have access to an unrestricted (other than by libel law, which 1A legitimately does not repeal) variety of expressed opinion. The way it assays to do so is by prohibiting the government to restrict the variety of opinions published/spoken. But the issue now is that the wire services in general and the AP in particular have done what 1A forbids the government to do. The AP (primarily) has created a monopoly on the expression of political opinion. Not in the editorial pages of the nation - not completely, at any rate - but by systematically libeling Republicans and stonewalling news uncongenial to Democrats in the “news” portion of the paper.
It is not journalism alone, but also the FCC enabling broadcast journalism which postures as objective, and “educators” - mostly government sponsored - who assist in that same project. In fact, SCOTUS itself fell for the con in its 1964 NY Times v. Sullivan decision - which made it difficult for politicians to sue for libel on the theory that if some news outlets attacked a politician, others would defend him. But, empirically, if one news outlet attacks a Republican, the others pile on with abandon. And in an instance when a news outlet attacks a Democrat, that journalist will be read out of the fraternity as “not a journalist, not objective.”
My conclusions are that

the AP, perhaps all wire services, are standing violations of the Sherman AntiTrust Act and, given that their prime virtue is to conserve expensive - in the Internet age, dirt cheap - telegraphy bandwidth, their ideologically anticompetitive effects make their continued existence unacceptable. They are not “too big to fail” anymore, and the First Amendment does not protect their anticompetiveness.

the NY Times v. Sullivan decision is bad precedent because based on the assumption that the First Amendment accomplished its objective, whereas in fact the application of Sherman is historically necessary but not certainly sufficient to reinstate ideological diversity in published/broadcast opinion.

PBS/NPR are illegitimate, and the FCC must be enjoined not to place the imprimatur of the government on so-called “objective” journalism.

SCOTUS can do it all - perhaps not in a single case, but the facts and the law are in place.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.