Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Senormechanico

"hang onto their wallets" -- No, this is way too passive.
If the court battle doesn't overturn this travesty, protest by any and all lawful means. Say it loud, say it proud.


25 posted on 01/12/2005 3:40:25 PM PST by California Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: California Patriot

For those of you who would like to follow "Florida redux",
here are a couple of links:

http://www.soundpolitics.com/

http://orbusmax.com./

Keep the light on for us...

SM


26 posted on 01/12/2005 3:57:44 PM PST by Senormechanico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: California Patriot
Fraudoire quoted Gandhi during her coronation. She may not realize how prophetic that was. We The People will protest this travesty and make our voices heard. The Queen of King County can count on that!
28 posted on 01/12/2005 4:04:20 PM PST by Splatter (A foolish man is able to learn, has the opportunity, and does not do it..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

To: California Patriot
"hang onto their wallets" -- No, this is way too passive.

Speaking of wallets, I just thought of a way to clean up elections:

  1. Require all precincts to keep votes and voter rolls separate; ballots from different precincts must be machine-separable.
  2. If the total number of 'fishy votes' found in all precincts that cast a majority of their votes for the winner exceeds the margin of victory, the loser has the right to demand a revote.
  3. The costs of any revote ordered because of 'fishy' votes will be assessed to the jurisdictions sponsoring precincts, in proportion to the number of 'fishy' votes attributable to those precincts (assessed to precincts regardless of who they cast the majority of votes for).
  4. The assessment for #3 shall be limitted to $10,000 per fishy vote; any election costs beyond that shall be covered from state general revenue.
  5. The jurisdictions against whom costs are assessed shall have the right and duty to recover those costs, when possible, from any individuals responsible for either casting or failing to prevent the fishy votes.
Voters may not mind when their election officials get away with fudging things in their favor, but I don't think anyone is going to be happy with election officials whose 'fudging' results in large assessments against them. A system such as described would create incentives for people to try to reveal fraud in opposing party's jurisdictions while minimizing it in their own.
36 posted on 01/12/2005 10:10:21 PM PST by supercat (To call the Constitution a 'living document' is to call a moth-infested overcoat a 'living garment'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson