The Election Fraud Thread

Quote: terapined

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/politics/rudy-giuliani-bankruptcy-georgia-election-workers/index.html
Rudy Giuliani must give control of luxury items and Manhattan apartment to Georgia election workers he defamed, judge rules

Cool

Hopefully they can get the pee stains out.

Quote: ams288

Hopefully they can get the pee stains out.

Maybe that's why to condo hasn't sold yet?

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/andy-harris-freedom-caucus-north-carolina/2024/10/25/id/1185470/
House Freedom Caucus Chair: N.C. Should Give Electors to Trump

Some in the GOP no longer want to count votes. They just determined that Trump should get all of NC electoral votes

Chilling

Quote: terapined

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/andy-harris-freedom-caucus-north-carolina/2024/10/25/id/1185470/
House Freedom Caucus Chair: N.C. Should Give Electors to Trump

Some in the GOP no longer want to count votes. They just determined that Trump should get all of NC electoral votes

Chilling

I know him (Harris) well. It’s too bad (for me!) that the only Anesthesiologist in the House or Senate is SO right wing. What is shocking (to me) is that the states DO NOT HAVE TO USE the popular vote to allocate their electors to the Electoral College. That State legislatures can decide how the electors are selected. Apparently all at present use the vote in some fashion (Maine/Nebraska not winner take all).
There are some Republicans who want it done in a bunch of states. Harris has pushed back on that, and just feels that if it can be shown that people in specific areas of North Carolina are prevented from voting due to hurricane damage, that they should not be disenfranchised. He is against it being applied Willy nilly like even more extreme Republicans want.

I believe that there will always be impediments to voting, but if you make it a priority, you’ll be able to vote. No ‘guessing’ that a certain area would have voted for your candidate.

There are many mainstream Democrats who want to do something similar. Actually, a more direct disenfranchisement of voters. They want a state, even if it votes majority Republican, to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote.

Let’s get this election over with!!

Quote: SOOPOO

I know him (Harris) well. It’s too bad (for me!) that the only Anesthesiologist in the House or Senate is SO right wing. What is shocking (to me) is that the states DO NOT HAVE TO USE the popular vote to allocate their electors to the Electoral College. That State legislatures can decide how the electors are selected. Apparently all at present use the vote in some fashion (Maine/Nebraska not winner take all).
There are some Republicans who want it done in a bunch of states. Harris has pushed back on that, and just feels that if it can be shown that people in specific areas of North Carolina are prevented from voting due to hurricane damage, that they should not be disenfranchised. He is against it being applied Willy nilly like even more extreme Republicans want.

I believe that there will always be impediments to voting, but if you make it a priority, you’ll be able to vote. No ‘guessing’ that a certain area would have voted for your candidate.

There are many mainstream Democrats who want to something similar. Actually, a more direct disenfranchisement of voters. They want a state, even if it votes majority Republican, to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote.

Let’s get this election over with!!

Looking at the history of how states determined electoral votes, some states early on used direct election of eligible voters-21 year old or older, White male landowners. In other states the state legislature directly chose electors via majority. A popular vote to chose electors was not adopted by all states until 1868, with South Carolina being the last holdout until its readmission after The Civil War. Indeed, to this day, states don't have to hold a popular election for electors. The Constitution leaves up to each state legislature to determine how the states electors are chosen.

If your pinhead acquaintance really cared, he'd try like Hell to make it easier for those impacted by the hurricanes to vote, instead of having the legislature appoint electoral votes via fiat. Just goes to show how un-democratic Republicans actually are.

I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.

Can you point out which Democrats want to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, even if the Republcain candidate wins the majority of the state's votes? Can you [point out which Democrats want states to refuse to appoint Republican electors, as you imply?

Or is this a case of you, once again, being intentionally ill-informed?

Quote: SOOPOO

I know him (Harris) well. It’s too bad (for me!) that the only Anesthesiologist in the House or Senate is SO right wing. What is shocking (to me) is that the states DO NOT HAVE TO USE the popular vote to allocate their electors to the Electoral College. That State legislatures can decide how the electors are selected. Apparently all at present use the vote in some fashion (Maine/Nebraska not winner take all).
There are some Republicans who want it done in a bunch of states. Harris has pushed back on that, and just feels that if it can be shown that people in specific areas of North Carolina are prevented from voting due to hurricane damage, that they should not be disenfranchised. He is against it being applied Willy nilly like even more extreme Republicans want.

I believe that there will always be impediments to voting, but if you make it a priority, you’ll be able to vote. No ‘guessing’ that a certain area would have voted for your candidate.

There are many mainstream Democrats who want to something similar. Actually, a more direct disenfranchisement of voters. They want a state, even if it votes majority Republican, to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote.

Let’s get this election over with!!

I voted in person because I have no idea if my vote by mail is counted
My signature is all over the place.
It's a little more consistent with pen on paper with that slight friction of the ball point connecting with paper.
Unfortunately in FL, they depend on a electronic pad.
I just got a new drivers lisc and had to sign on an electronic pad where there is no friction
It sucks
I signed once, it was messy
I hit erase button and signed again
I didn't like that one either but I it was better then the 1st one so went with it
They printed out my new drivers lisc
I go across the hall and vote
I have to sign an electronic pad again which sucks.
Without that friction, my signature is all over the place
I sign in and they actually refused to accept it.
I complain because the signature on my driver's lisc was literally done across the hall just minutes prior
They told me to sign again and told me to try to replicate the signature I made 5 minutes earlier
I tell them it's hard because it's more consistent with pen on paper.
They actually said they get that a lot about signing on an electronic pad.
I try again, they look at it and finally say it's good enough.
This really sucks because I'm presenting picture ID with a picture literally taken 5 min earlier but that's not good enough to vote
I have to have a consistent signature on a device I never use for a signature
I hate it
With paper and pen , I can take my time preparing to sign by putting pen on paper, hesitating then signing
With the electronic pad, as soon as it touches the pad its all ready making a blob so I can't hesitate
Everytime I vote, I have to give multiple signatures until they accept it
Uggh
It's absurd
What if I have a medical issue and have shaky hands. Is FL going to take away the right to vote even though they see the pic ID literally created 5 min earlier
Maybe I should just go with an "X" lol
Is that allowed?

Quote: GenoDRPh

Looking at the history of how states determined electoral votes, some states early on used direct election of eligible voters-21 year old or older, White male landowners. In other states the state legislature directly chose electors via majority. A popular vote to chose electors was not adopted by all states until 1868, with South Carolina being the last holdout until its readmission after The Civil War. Indeed, to this day, states don't have to hold a popular election for electors. The Constitution leaves up to each state legislature to determine how the states electors are chosen.

If your pinhead acquaintance really cared, he'd try like Hell to make it easier for those impacted by the hurricanes to vote, instead of having the legislature appoint electoral votes via fiat. Just goes to show how un-democratic Republicans actually are.

I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.

Can you point out which Democrats want to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, even if the Republcain candidate wins the majority of the state's votes? Can you [point out which Democrats want states to refuse to appoint Republican electors, as you imply?

Or is this a case of you, once again, being intentionally ill-informed?

No. It’s a case of you being unable to understand a simple point. It seems to happen frequently. If a Republican wins a majority of the votes in State X, there are Democrats who do not want State X electors to be Republican, if a Democrat wins the national popular vote. Ask one of your grandchildren to explain that to you if you can’t understand.

I’ll let you use your Google finger to find the list of Democrats who would be in favor of such.

Quote: GenoDRPh

I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.

Several states have passed such laws. Google "national popular vote interstate compact" to learn more.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: GenoDRPh

Looking at the history of how states determined electoral votes, some states early on used direct election of eligible voters-21 year old or older, White male landowners. In other states the state legislature directly chose electors via majority. A popular vote to chose electors was not adopted by all states until 1868, with South Carolina being the last holdout until its readmission after The Civil War. Indeed, to this day, states don't have to hold a popular election for electors. The Constitution leaves up to each state legislature to determine how the states electors are chosen.

If your pinhead acquaintance really cared, he'd try like Hell to make it easier for those impacted by the hurricanes to vote, instead of having the legislature appoint electoral votes via fiat. Just goes to show how un-democratic Republicans actually are.

I am not aware of any state that wants to appoint Democrat electors even if that state votes for a Republican candidate. I am aware of states who wish to appoint their state's electors according who wins the majority of votes nationally, regardless of party.

Can you point out which Democrats want to appoint Democrat Electors if the Democrat candidate wins the NATIONAL popular vote, even if the Republcain candidate wins the majority of the state's votes? Can you [point out which Democrats want states to refuse to appoint Republican electors, as you imply?

Or is this a case of you, once again, being intentionally ill-informed?

No. It’s a case of you being unable to understand a simple point. It seems to happen frequently. If a Republican wins a majority of the votes in State X, there are Democrats who do not want State X electors to be Republican, if a Democrat wins the national popular vote. Ask one of your grandchildren to explain that to you if you can’t understand.

I’ll let you use your Google finger to find the list of Democrats who would be in favor of such.

Wrong again! I would have had so much fun with you, if you ever practiced at my hospital!

Those same Democrats would have no problem appointing Republican electors if the Republican candidate won the national. You neglect to point that out, kimosabe. You imply Democrats would seek to appoint Democrat EVs regardless of national vote totals. I dare you to say that is not true. I dare you to state that the Voter Compact calls for appointing EVs according to the national vote, and that Democrats would willingly appoint GOP EVs if the GOP candidate wins the national vote. Go ahead. I dare you. I also dare you to point out by name which Democrats would ONLY appoint Democrat EVs. Put up or shut up.

If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Democrat(by virtue of the national vote total).

If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, but a Republican win a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total).

If a Republican wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Republican wins a majority nationwide, then the EV goes to the Republican (by virtue of the national vote total).

If a Democrat wins a majority of votes in State X, and the Democrat wins a majority nationwide, then the EVs go to the Democrat (by virtue of the national vote total).

Remember, the Constitution allows state legislatures the power to determine how electors are appointed.

I went to vote this morning and the line was too long so I just turned the car around and left. I am not going to sacrifice a half hour of my time for a vote that probably will not change the outcome.