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

Skip to comments.

Theoretical solution to rat election stealing

Posted on 11/10/2010 7:50:04 PM PST by wendy1946

I've mentioned the need for a Voters Bill of Rights before.

The one area of that concept which I've been least sure of has been what to do about demoKKKrat vote manufacturing and election stealing. I've mentioned the possibility of either getting rid of the secret ballot or at least doing some sort of thing so that votes could be checked out at some point but a lot of people would have serious misgivings about that one and it would probably never fly.

I may have a better idea here, at least in theory...

Any time an election is won or lost by less than one or two percent of the vote under our present system, you've got roughly half the population of the district in question basically being disenfranchised, whichever way it falls. What may be needed (as part of that Voters' Bill of Rights) would be an anti-disenfranchisement law which stated that when an election was within two percentage points, then BOTH of the candidates go the legislative body in question, each with half a vote!!

That says that in any sort of a thing involving an ideological divide their votes would cancel which would in fact be the basic wish of their district as a whole while, when voting on something involving the interest of the district directly, they'd be most likely to vote the same way and their one combined vote would count as you'd expect.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: chat; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 11/10/2010 7:50:05 PM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
I have long believed that one of the primary purposes of polls is to let Democrats know how many votes they need to find/manufacture in order to win in closely-contested races. (Think Angle-Reid.) Ballots that have been marked in advance and stored somewhere suddenly and miraculously show up after the election and get counted. Poof - the Democrat wins every time.

We can't (and perhaps, shouldn't) stop polling from occurring. But we can INSIST that there will be no extension of voting hours for any reason, and ONLY THOSE BALLOTS THAT HAVE BEEN TURNED IN BY POLL-CLOSING TIME WILL BE COUNTED.

(If Iraqis can risk their lives, literally, to stand in line to vote, then Americans can make time to vote on election day, or not at all!)

2 posted on 11/10/2010 8:01:03 PM PST by Prov3456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Or elect all candidates who run and get more than some minimal fraction of all votes cast, giving each elected candidate a fractional vote in proportion to the fraction of votes they received. That would open things up for more than two major parties as a side effect.


3 posted on 11/10/2010 8:01:57 PM PST by sourcery (Poor Nancy: From Speaker OF the House to...Speaker UNDER the House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
Bring back the poll tax - make it too expensive for them to steal.
4 posted on 11/10/2010 8:05:38 PM PST by decal (Voting for a Liberal is nothing but second-degree theft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

No, what we need is when someone is caught and convicted of election fraud, they get executed. Period, end of discussion.

Election Fraud is no less a crime than Treason and should be handled appropriately.


5 posted on 11/10/2010 8:05:49 PM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

The solution is for Republicans to relentlessly bring forward voter ID bills, one after another. Make normal, traditional American families see that the rats’ primary interest is in allowing vote fraud and stealing elections.
Relentlessly, state by state. NOW is the time to get it done.


6 posted on 11/10/2010 8:08:43 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

I believe the tea party in Houston had some success in finding and preventing voter fraud. We need to read up more about it.


7 posted on 11/10/2010 8:09:58 PM PST by sgtyork (The secret of happiness is freedom, and the secret of freedom, courage. Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

Letting both “winners” vote is somewhat like Solomon giving half the baby to each of the “winning” moms. Furthermore, it changes the vote stealing to one of trying to make sure you wind up within that magic 1 or 2% trigger.


8 posted on 11/10/2010 8:09:58 PM PST by C210N (0bama, Making the US safe for Global Marxism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

No posting of results until 100% of precincts have reported.


9 posted on 11/10/2010 8:11:50 PM PST by Mygirlsmom (Way to go Badgers! For the first time in 8 years I am proud of my state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
The one area of that concept which I've been least sure of has been what to do about demoKKKrat vote manufacturing and election stealing.

My theory is that any election system designed by a man can be kinked by another man. Hundreds of millions of dollars are flowing into election coffers, and much skulduggery. My solution would be to reduce the power of the elective offices to reduce the amount of fraud and corruption, and need to steal elections.

By decentralizing the power in Washington we would reduce the attractiveness of those offices. The power would then be transferred to the state level. The lobbyist would then have to split their efforts into fifty states and one federal government and would lose much of their effectiveness.

10 posted on 11/10/2010 8:32:31 PM PST by oldbrowser (Welcome to California's workers paradise..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

You’ve touched on something very important. The more power at the center, the more certain and the more desperately important it becomes to control the center.

Reduce the power at the center and you reduce the value of the prize.

And you reduce the amount of damage that can be done from the center. If the other side gains power, its not the end of the world.


11 posted on 11/10/2010 8:48:33 PM PST by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
"Theoretical solution to rat election stealing"

We already have it. Now that Repubblies control more than half of the legislatures, they should (and trust me, will) pass voter ID laws. That might be worth 1% of all ballots during a close election year for a statewide office, because all the fraud happens in heavily Democratic precincts.

12 posted on 11/10/2010 8:55:55 PM PST by tom h ("Don't worry, Dems, you've got me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Prov3456

And then there’s the wide-scale application of ground temperature therapy...


13 posted on 11/10/2010 8:57:14 PM PST by SuperLuminal (Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tom h

Also make the penalties for any kind of vote tampering to be of severe consequences, like 5 years and $10,000 fine that has to be paid before a person can get out of jail. Make it mandatory sentencing without any chance of parole and no cupcake prisons. Federal prison only.


14 posted on 11/10/2010 9:38:31 PM PST by Debi911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser; marron

I think you are right about centralization of power. If power is centralized then the only way to achieve any goal is to get all the power. Increases intrigue, corruption.


15 posted on 11/10/2010 10:06:45 PM PST by Bhoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946

All election stealing should be ratted out!


16 posted on 11/10/2010 10:25:22 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Or elect all candidates who run and get more than some minimal fraction of all votes cast, giving each elected candidate a fractional vote in proportion to the fraction of votes they received. That would open things up for more than two major parties as a side effect.

The thing which is needed for that is some form of runoff elections, most likely instant runoff. Again the idea of a Voters' Bill of Rights which is sorely needed:

The first item of such a bill HAS TO BE runoff elections or instant runoff elections for all public offices. Nobody should ever fear to vote his first choice, at least on a first ballot, and nobody should ever hold any public office with less than 50% of the vote. There should be no Al Frankens and, funny thing, in South Carolina in 08 you had the exact same situation with a close vote and a third party, and a runoff election two weeks later fixed the problem.

There should also be a None-Of-Above choice on all ballots for public office and if that choice ever wins, then the other candidates should be barred for life from holding any public office and the parties sponsoring them should be barred for at least ten years from sponsoring candidates for that particular office. The penalty for running dead wood for public offices should be severe.

Another item on such a voters' bill of rights should be something which would eliminate voting fraud for all time and if that means getting rid of the secret ballot or at least limiting it somehow or other, so be it, we're paying too high a price for it. Somehow or other it has to be possible to check up on votes when there are questions or evidence of fraud. Or as noted above, you might could split the representation for a district which is nearly equally divided.

There should be a provision that when a president is impeached and removed, his VP goes out the door with him and the office is either vacant until the next election or an emergency election is held to fill the office for the remainder of the current term. Granted removing a president should be difficult but it should not be impossible and if we couldn't remove Slick, we'd not have been able to remove Hitler or Nero either.

What happened in 98/99 was that Trent Lott simply refused to hand the presidency over to Algor with a year to go on Slick's second term, for obvious reasons. The situation should not be possible.

A person should need to be a US citizen for 18 years before voting in a US election. It should not be possible for a rogue political party to rule our land by simply importing large voting blocks for itself.

There should also be some mechanism to prevent utterly unqualified people from holding high offices. Certainly a candidate for president or vice president, or for US Senator or member of the House of Representatives should need to obtain the same basic and simple secret level security clearance which anybody would need to be a guard at the gate of any military base in our land. That isn't asking for much but it would have spared us from the last two democrat presidents.

There are a few other things you'd want but that's the main gist of it. The system is basically broken and in need of repair.

17 posted on 11/11/2010 3:57:24 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: C210N
Letting both “winners” vote is somewhat like Solomon giving half the baby to each of the “winning” moms. Furthermore, it changes the vote stealing to one of trying to make sure you wind up within that magic 1 or 2% trigger.

Think about it just a tiny bit, even if the dems were to steal their way into such a tie here and there, far less damage would have been done and would only consist of a 53% majority losing its ability to disenfranchise the other 47% or something like that.

As I see it, we need to either get this stuff straight somehow or other or split the country up. The system at present is barely working.

18 posted on 11/11/2010 4:04:17 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946
Very good points.
19 posted on 11/11/2010 4:04:52 AM PST by wintertime (Re: Obama, Rush Limbaugh said, "He was born here." ( So? Where's the proof?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
By decentralizing the power in Washington we would reduce the attractiveness of those offices. The power would then be transferred to the state level. The lobbyist would then have to split their efforts into fifty states and one federal government and would lose much of their effectiveness.

That idea needs to be part of the Voters' Bill of Rights.

20 posted on 11/11/2010 4:06:54 AM PST by wendy1946
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

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.

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