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

To: Lucas McCain

I’ve heard that Mexico, among other countries, has strict voter ID laws in place. Amazing to think that some less developed countries have much better voter integrity in their elections than we do.

There’s a developing liberal meme, that “Hillary won the popular vote”. But how much of that “winning”, involved the illegal alien vote, and other voter fraud? When will we see election results from Philadelphia, for example? Do they have precincts in which Trump got exactly zero votes, and more votes recorded than registered voters?

If we were able to root out voting problems such as I noted, I question if Hillary really did win the popular vote nationwide.


10 posted on 11/10/2016 6:44:26 AM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: Dilbert San Diego
I’ve heard that Mexico, among other countries, has strict voter ID laws in place.

VERY strict. Voter registration required in advance. Absentee ballots must be requested 6 months in advance. Thumbprint required to vote.

The corruption in third-world countries is epidemic. So, they've developed voting systems that are resistant to corruption.

The US voting system assumes that people are basically honest. In the past, we were mostly honest outside a few places controlled by political machines (Chicago, NYC, etc).

When government was smaller, there wasn't much reason to cheat. But now that government has an unlimited ability to reward the "winners", it's very cost-effective to cheat.

We need a voting system that is at least as secure as credit card payment processing -- and frankly, that's still full of loopholes.

19 posted on 11/10/2016 6:52:24 AM PST by justlurking (#TurnOffCNN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Dilbert San Diego
There’s a developing liberal meme, that “Hillary won the popular vote”.

It doesn't matter. It's really easy to shut these people down.

The Electoral College was designed by the Founding Fathers to prevent the Presidential election from turning into a popularity contest.

In this election, that's what exactly happened: the blue states had a very high margin for Hillary. But, the red states had a lower margin for Trump. And unexpected states turned purple, like Minnesota.

The EC was a compromise between the low-population and high-population states. They were (rightly) concerned that the high-population states could overwhelm the less-populated states, leaving them with no representation in the Presidency.

A Presidential candidate must build a coalition of states with a majority of electoral votes, campaigning and proposing policies that will appear to a set of states with a majority of EVs.

"But, my vote doesn't matter because I live in a deep red state! They don't even campaign here!"

No, your vote matters -- because the candidates must propose (and enact) policies that benefit a coalition of states. Otherwise, those states will turn purple, or the opposite color.

24 posted on 11/10/2016 7:02:03 AM PST by justlurking (#TurnOffCNN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“There’s a developing liberal meme, that “Hillary won the popular vote”. But how much of that “winning”, involved the illegal alien vote, and other voter fraud? When will we see election results from Philadelphia, for example? Do they have precincts in which Trump got exactly zero votes, and more votes recorded than registered voters?”


WRT to the popular vote, fraud is irrelevant because the popular vote itself (on a national level) is irrelevant. Yes, popular vote and EVs follow each other on a state level, and usually on the national level, but that’s not what our system is about. Candidates KNOW that this is a race for EVs in 50 states, with the candidate who gets to 270 being the winner. They are NOT campaigning for the most popular votes nationwide, so who CARES who wins that vote? Why should Trump have had to waste any time in CA or MA, for example, or Clinton in TX or OK (or, for that matter, visa-versa)? They campaigned in primarily the battleground states (as each campaign viewed them) BECAUSE THAT IS HOW TO WIN GIVEN OUR EXISTING SYSTEM. Change the system, and candidates will change how and where they campaign to adjust to that new system.


46 posted on 11/10/2016 8:30:23 AM PST by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I wonder how many other noticed that this time the big cities started reporting early. I believe they thought they had enough fraudulent votes in place. They did not need to wait for the last minute after everyone else reported to know how many votes they needed. Unfortunately they listened to their own polls. They did it this way due to Trump shining a light on their normal practices.


49 posted on 11/10/2016 8:44:02 AM PST by Kadric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | 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