Jump to content

Can the election be rigged?


DonJoe
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have very little confidence in our election systems. With the GOP engaging in removal of people from the voting rolls illegally, to the gerrymandering extremes to the ballot boxes in which the designers were told to leave open a back door, to the strong evidence of past tampering to the US supreme court voiding the 2000 election and appointing bush, how can anyone believe that the election will be decided by the votes of the people. That is not to mention the massive amounts of misinformation about the candidates, where they stand on the issues, and character attacks that are so common place in the media. Unless people are educated about the election democracy cannot function, and we clearly see our government is non-functional.

 

We can argue with one another about issues of taxes, war, distribution of money, infrastructure, civil rights, the police shooting people in the streets, terrorism, as we are taught by the media. Divide and conquer.

 

But unless we get control of the voting system, it won't matter. The media will tell us the race is close so they can install anyone they want without even letting us know anything about the policies to be enacted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there are basically two ways to change the legitimate results of a presidential election.

- Supreme Court decision. Solution: Elect presidents and a congress who will appoint impartial, objective judges.

- Ballot box tampering. Solution: A paper trail, showing who each voter chose.

 

Once the practice of cheating gets established, it is hard to stop because the cheats, rather than the electorate, choose which politician will be most favorable to them. The more cheating, the harder it is to pass reforms, aiming to make elections fair again.

 

The House Of Representatives is being kept illegitimately red, mostly by gerrymandering. One reason for this is the overwhelming domination of Republicans at the state and local level in many districts. Gerrymandering is practiced in Democratic districts too, but they are far less numerous. Solution: Impartial commissions to draw up districts.

 

The solution is impartial commissions to draw up districts. This is not impossible to do and is actually a far more tractable problem than cheating at the polls. Unlike secretive poll tampering, which districts are gerrymandered, and how, is easily obtained information.

 

Here is one case where it was done despite strong opposition from the governor, chamber of commerce and numerous others.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-reiss-supreme-court-redistricting-20150630-story.html

Who supports gerrymandering? Not voters, who regularly prefer to give independent commissions the power to set voting boundaries. Not the Supreme Court, which ruled Monday in favor of Arizona's voters and their redistricting commission. That leaves one group: politicians interested in keeping their jobs, regardless of voters' best interests, democracy and plain common sense.

In 2000, Arizona voters, fed up with political gerrymandering, overwhelmingly passed Proposition 106. This ballot initiative took away the power to draw congressional districts from state politicians and gave it to a commission made up of two Democrats, two Republicans and one independent chairman.

- snip -

 

Much of the success of disinformation comes from a prevalently under-educated, ignorant and gullible public. Real information is still available but requires some initiative to acquire. Unless politics swing to the left again, none of these problems will addressed.

 

Also, holding elections on Tuesdays, or any workday is ridiculous. Election day needs to be made a national day off .... Indeed, a holiday, to celebrate the one right that makes all the others possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for responding. I appreciate your answer. I embedded my responses in red below.

 

 

So there are basically two ways to change the legitimate results of a presidential election.

 

When the populace does not have ready access to correct information about the candidates, then the populace is not informed. The media spews out massive amounts of propaganda, but very little substance. I consider the populace to be uninformed. I consider myself as part of that populace. Further the GOP plan of sweeping the voter roles of probable voters who might vote against the GOP has been in place for over a decade and is very effective in increasing the GOP advantage. I would further present that unless the public has a better say in who those candidates are we can end up in the situation where the corporations pick all the candidates and no matter which candidate is selected, the rich win.

 

- Supreme Court decision. Solution: Elect presidents and a congress who will appoint impartial, objective judges. I think this is of critical importance but I am not sure we are at a stage where this can be accomplished. I don't have confidence we can elect candidates who will appoint impartial, objective judges. As you suggest below, once this practice is established (and we already had the USSC appoint bush) it is hard to stop.

- Ballot box tampering. Solution: A paper trail, showing who each voter chose. Another important factor. In Minnesota we have a paper trail, and the law states when the election is close enough, the paper ballots are used to verify the election. The problem is the % is known so the cheaters only have to make sure they cheat by enough to not have the paper ballots counted.

 

Once the practice of cheating gets established, it is hard to stop because the cheats, rather than the electorate, choose which politician will be most favorable to them. The more cheating, the harder it is to pass reforms, aiming to make elections fair again. We agree here, but I guess I think we are further along on that cheating path.

 

The House Of Representatives is being kept illegitimately red, mostly by gerrymandering. One reason for this is the overwhelming domination of Republicans at the state and local level in many districts. Gerrymandering is practiced in Democratic districts too, but they are far less numerous. Solution: Impartial commissions to draw up districts. We agree on the problem. I don' t know of any impartial people, myself included. If the solution is some number of democrats and some number of republican, and the rich buy them both off, we don't improve. Consider if you will the problem of allowing third parties at the debates. When the league of women voters ran the debates, it was much better. Now it is a coalition of republicans and democrats to and it is bi-partisan, not non-partisan.

 

The solution is impartial commissions to draw up districts. This is not impossible to do and is actually a far more tractable problem than cheating at the polls. Unlike secretive poll tampering, which districts are gerrymandered, and how, is easily obtained information.

 

Here is one case where it was done despite strong opposition from the governor, chamber of commerce and numerous others.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-reiss-supreme-court-redistricting-20150630-story.html

 

Much of the success of disinformation comes from a prevalently under-educated, ignorant and gullible public. Real information is still available but requires some initiative to acquire. Unless politics swing to the left again, none of these problems will addressed. Yes, real information is still available, but it is hard to find; particularly under the mountains of propaganda. My point was that an informed populace is required to have good government. We don't have good government and we don't have an informed populace. Most of the sources for information have become propaganda only. I suggest very few would vote for Trump, if they knew what he stands for. Instead we are being told the race is now almost even.

 

Also, holding elections on Tuesdays, or any workday is ridiculous. Election day needs to be made a national day off .... Indeed, a holiday, to celebrate the one right that makes all the others possible. We agree here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could the Election be rigged?

 

The primary was completely rigged in favor towards Hillary because If not for the rigging Bernie would have won in a Huge Margin just like Donald Trump on the right side. Don't get me wrong I don't want Trump but at the Same time I do not want to have Hillary we need someone that will change the corrupt system that we live in and I believe that Bernie would have fixed this. But regardless Bernie started a movement that isn't slowing down at all so if the Dems lose in 2016 watch out for a progressive candidate to be on the ticket in 2020. The progressive movement of the 21st century is trying to remove the corruption in america and the sameness of the politics of the past 3 or 4 Decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repeating the lie that the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders doesn't make it's so. It is simply not true.

 

Such lies are damaging and especially poorly timed given the sakes at hand.

 

Enabling fascists because your candidate lost is in poor form.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernie started a movement that isn't slowing down at all so if the Dems lose in 2016 watch out for a progressive candidate to be on the ticket in 2020.

 

And if Hillary wins, but proves a disappointment to progressives, in her first term, look for one of the Berniecrats challenge her in 2020.

http://berniecrats.net/

 

The progressive movement of the 21st century is trying to remove the corruption in america and the sameness of the politics of the past 3 or 4 Decades.

 

 

Because of unprecedented levels of distrust, Hillary's first term in office will be a trial run. To get elected again, she will have to prove that her agenda is truly progressive. I am looking forward to Trump's political demise and sincerely hope President Hillary Clinton supports policies that will drastically reduce corruption and bring back the middle class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2004 my neighbor had a neighborhood party and I attended with about 30 of my neighbors. It was nearing election time and I took a brief survey of how people were going to vote. Of the 30 only 1 person planned on voting for bush for president. Everyone else was leaning to democrat. I did this without revealing whom I was voting for.

 

I checked the election results and in my district 65% of the people voted for bush. While it is a small sample, it makes the results hard for me to beleive. We did use a paper ballot so it was traceable, but since the vote was not close, the paper ballots were locked away and no one could count them.

 

Of course this was not a large enough sample to be convincing of anything, but it still looks suspicious to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get elected again, she will have to prove that her agenda is truly progressive.

This just isn't the case. To get re-elected, she'll have to win the center. If she proves that she's truly progressive, she'll win a primary but lose an election to a right winger that's a better "center-straddler".

 

The normal curve being what it is, 68% of the vote lies within one standard deviation of the mean on both sides. That means that in order to get re-elected, any Democrat needs some support on the right, and any Republican needs some support on the left. It makes more sense to sacrifice the skinny part of the curve at the edge to get the fat part of the curve in the middle.

 

That's why the left will always be angry with a Democratic President, and the right will always be angry with a Republican President. This is how our system works ... there's no escaping it. You only win by compromising your ideals.

 

It also means that a person like Trump can only win by lying to both the left and especially to the right. Because he's going for a different demographic: resentful white male racists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary will not get a second term if she flip flops, yet again, and resumes support for the TPP, as one example. This is true on a range of issues like favoritism for Wall St or Big Pharma and support of tax loopholes for the very rich.

 

Fueled by a general dissatisfaction with widespread corruption in Washington, Bernie has awakened a new spirit of reform as exemplified by the growing number of Berniecrats.

http://berniecrats.net/

Many of the Berniecrats in congress are young, idealistic and ambitious to reform government. And, probably sooner than later, will field a viable presidential candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Repeating the lie that the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders doesn't make it's so. It is simply not true.

 

Such lies are damaging and especially poorly timed given the sakes at hand.

There were no "lies" in zkyllonen8's post. The deck was stacked in Hillary's favor from the start of the primary season. Hell, over 400 superdelegates pledged loyalty to Clinton before they even knew who the competition was. The WikiLeaks emails proved the deck was stacked against Bernie from the get go.

 

 

Enabling fascists because your candidate lost is in poor form.

 

Bill

That's your interpretation; it's not reality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IN THE VOTER ID CLIMATE NOT VOTING IS A SERIOUS MATTER FOR THE USA IF VOTERS WANT A MODERATE GOVERNMENT AT EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT,SCHOOL BOARDS ETC ETC ETC.

 

Typically the larger the voter turnout the moderate government results which is why the ALEC RINO party has engaged in their phoney VOTER ID activity. The last 36 years voters have really been sickened by the massive misinformation campaigns led by the ALEC RINO party which as we know subverted the GOP.

 

In the latest news the Kansas Secretary of State was dealt a serious VOTER ID setback.

 

Can computerized voting machines be rigged? Of course

 

http://www.votenader.org/issues/political/electoral-reform/

 

Thoughts on voter issues:

http://www.votenader.org/issues/

 

 

--- NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN BECAUSE NEVER VOTING REPUBLICAN AGAIN ELIMINATES THE RADICAL ANTI AMERICAN RIGHT WING RINOS THAT HAVE SUBVERTED OUR DEMOCRACY.

 

Bernie Voters need to learn the difference BETWEEN Moderate

Democrats,Progressive Democrats of America and the bad boys and girls known as the Democratic Leadership Council/Blue Dog Democrats such as the Clintons which is the ALEC arm aka DINO's and yes Koch dollars are behind the DLC.

 

--- BEWARE: Aegis Strategic, Gone Wild

 

Kiss your right to vote,worker rights,local public schools & pensions goodbye

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/koch-brothers-candidate-training-recruiting-aegis-strategic

 

Voters ORGANIZING A VOTING DAY PACKET might be a preventive measure which could include:

--- a birth certificate

--- a drivers license or state ID card

--- proof of voter registration etc etc etc.

--- Military Discharge Documents

--- Keep it close by as voting opportunities are ongoing

 

Protect YOURSELF from possible GOP voting fraud/theft on all election days.

 

--- This is an interesting read:

 

http://www.palastinvestigativefund.org/?id=52

 

Of course I choose Jill Stein because she is not tainted with ALEC/DLC thinking or ALEC/DLC money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course I choose Jill Stein because she is not tainted with ALEC/DLC thinking or ALEC/DLC money.

 

Neither is she tainted by any chance of ever participating in the federal government as an elected official.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So every ten years they have this way of redrawing congressional districts based on the U.S. Census - you get the governors and you get the data and use it right and you know what, you can make a whole lot of woes for the majority, it's called the minority rig, or the gerrymandering gig.

 

Well they did, big time in 2010, oh yes they did. Oh, but you say, why did they let that happen, we wonder a lot. We are inflamed, unsettled, it is unsettling to be uncertain about so much. Some regulations are good, some are not so good. Befuddled we might be / demand what about demand / what about profit/ what about wealth/ what about things that don't seem to change that should change/ that could easily be changed/but ain't, but hadn't, And maybe won't not never/ what about the majority not meaning much no matter how they vote.

 

And yes/ what about voting / the voting act of 1965 being repealed by the Supreme Court. What quickly transpired afterwards in the aftermath of that repeal of the voting act of 1965 in 2011, 2012/ and all the way to 2016.

 

Some say that its tit for tat/ you got your Obama/ now give us our Trump.

 

Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Clinton's campaign message must be tweaked to win over the middle. She is doing that now by toning down some of the primary rhetoric she used to counter Bernie. Bernie apparently understands and is actively campaigning for Hillary.

 

Once in office, Hillary will have an especially hard row to hoe. While, enduring relentless attacks from the Right, perhaps, worse than Obama, she will be under close scrutiny, not only from the Left of her own party, but moderate Democrats who don't trust her to work for their economic best interests. Hillary will begin her first term handicapped by low levels of hope and enthusiasm in her own party. Gerrymandering will probably keep the House in Republican control. So no matter which way the Senate swings, the Republicans will still be able to jam everything up.

 

If she still wants a second term, Hillary will need Democrats to close ranks around her, in 2020. So Hillary cannot afford the appearance or reality of favoritism for Big Interests. In the face of a hailstorm of obstacles, Hillary will have to keep a precarious balance between Left and Moderate Democrats .... All in a time when, for a large portion of the electorate, lowered Middle Class expectations for the future are driving economic politics to the left.

 

Presidential politics would benefit from new blood. As of this juncture, there is no obvious younger figure in contrast to this season's crop of conspicuously geriatric candidates. Within the Democratic Party, there are a number of youthful Berniecrats, well-positioned to challenge Hillary in 2020.

http://berniecrats.net/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your analysis isn't fundamentally off Bludog, but this balancing act is one any Democratic hopeful to the presidency must juggle or they will simply lose.

 

As Laripu has rightly pointed out numerous times most of the votes are in the center. To win more policy victories those who lean more left need to become a dependable part of the Democratic party's voting block (as you have this season). But when those who claim to be progressives either don't vote, or vote Green, or ??? then there is no alternative for a Democratic candidate who seeks to win (as opposed to being a protest candidate) but to seek reliable voters.

 

If that means appealing to the vote-rich center, then that's what will happen.

 

So-called leftists who opt out have no one but themselves to blame if the Democratic party positions itself to win without them. It is a self-defeating strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel those leftists who opt out or vote for fringe candidates are making a dangerous mistake, in favor of the opposition; Especially this season. Considering the disastrous consequences of a Trump win, their decision is indicative of just how disillusioned many Democrats are with what they perceive, as their Party's support of Big Business, at their expense .

 

Loss of jobs .... Loss of good paying jobs ..... Young people living with their parents into adulthood with increasing frequency .... Difficulty of getting a higher education .... Fewer people able to afford their own homes .... Increased awareness of the harm done by trade deals and outsourcing .... People forced to work several jobs, just to make ends meet. All these things are driving economic views Left, within the Democratic Party. Traditional views of what constitutes "the middle" are changing.

 

In her first term, Hillary will need to show herself to be economically progressive, as well as socially, to get a second term. She will surely be challenged in 2020, if, for instance, she resumes support for the TPP, or supports legislation favoring Wall St. or Big Pharma.

 

Because of increasing public awareness of massive corruption in government and escalating economic inequality. And because of the unexpected success of Sanders primary candidacy, the Berniecrats should not be underestimated.

http://berniecrats.net/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel those leftists who opt out or vote for fringe candidates are making a dangerous mistake, in favor of the opposition; Especially this season. Considering the disastrous consequences of a Trump win, their decision is indicative of just how disillusioned many Democrats are with what they perceive, as their Party's support of Big Business, at their expense .

 

Loss of jobs .... Loss of good paying jobs ..... Young people living with their parents into adulthood with increasing frequency .... Difficulty of getting a higher education .... Fewer people able to afford their own homes .... Increased awareness of the harm done by trade deals and outsourcing .... People forced to work several jobs, just to make ends meet. All these things are driving economic views Left, within the Democratic Party. Traditional views of what constitutes "the middle" are changing.

 

In her first term, Hillary will need to show herself to be economically progressive, as well as socially, to get a second term. She will surely be challenged in 2020, if, for instance, she resumes support for the TPP, or supports legislation favoring Wall St. or Big Pharma.

 

Because of increasing public awareness of massive corruption in government and escalating economic inequality. And because of the unexpected success of Sanders primary candidacy, the Berniecrats should not be underestimated.

http://berniecrats.net/

 

Berniecrats will not be underestimated to the degree they are Democrats first. Being in and of the Democratic party is the best way to have a political impact.

 

To the extent Being a Berniecrat is not about party affiliation it will be a failed and divisive movement instead of a potent force that maximizes reforms in its direction.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all Berniecrats are Democrats, with a handful of Independents and some greens. Bernie himself finally recognized the necessity of joining the Democratic Party.

 

As standards of living decline and the economic politics of ordinary Democrats continue to move left, there should be room for Berniecrats to supplant representatives of the status quo, in the Democratic Party. If and when the Berniecrat contingent grows into a majority, the need for the name "Berniecrat" will no longer exist and they will just Democrats.

 

The fact that politicians and pundits so underestimated the appeal of Bernie's message, at the beginning of his run, indicates they were not aware, at that time, of the political changes happening among the Democratic rank and file.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary will not get a second term if she flip flops, yet again, and resumes support for the TPP, as one example. This is true on a range of issues like favoritism for Wall St or Big Pharma and support of tax loopholes for the very rich.

 

Fueled by a general dissatisfaction with widespread corruption in Washington, Bernie has awakened a new spirit of reform as exemplified by the growing number of Berniecrats.

http://berniecrats.net/

Many of the Berniecrats in congress are young, idealistic and ambitious to reform government. And, probably sooner than later, will field a viable presidential candidate.

You support what you support (and I support similar things) but if you ignore the math, you won't be right. Any politician can win by giving their base just enough while really gathering in the big center.

 

And no politician can ever win by ignoring the big center and doing only what their base wants.

 

Look at this and add. You need a big part of 19.1% to the right of center, or you'll lose. But you can confidently sacrifice the 0.1%, 0.5%, 1.7% on the extreme left. If you get enough of the 19.1% to the right of center, you can also sacrifice the 4.4% and 9.2% on the left. Because 15%+19.1%+19.1% =53.2% and you win.

 

Any pol that can do arithmetic knows that 19.1 is more than double 9.2. The rest is pol-craft: how to speak to convince without alienating.

 

 

Not believing this is like not believing in global warming.

 

normal-distrubution-large.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All true. But the Democratic center is moving Left.

 

And will continue to do so only so long as those "on the left" remain reliable Democrats and don't engage in factionalism, don't vote, or go 3rd party.

 

Otherwise, Democratic candidates that want to win (as opposed who don't care if they lose) will need to look to the center.

 

This is not a small point. But seems lost on some (but clearly not you).

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All true. But the Democratic center is moving Left.

The normal curve above models the entire political spectrum, not just the Democrats. If you model the Democrats only, you don't get a normal curve, you get a curve with a hump on the right. That would be like modeling men's height by only looking at men under 5'8". Most of the people would be on the right of that curve too.

 

If you want to move the country to the left (a very reasonable and worthy goal, IMHO :D) you have to move the center of the entire political spectrum to the left.

 

Now, that is possible, but takes time and work. To some degree it's happened socially. Gays can marry, serve in the military, interracial couples are accepted, racism is not defeated, but is seen as wrong in large companies and in bad taste socially in 65% of the population (roughly). The reason this had happened socially is that none of that hurts the bank accounts of rich people.

 

So, moving economically to the left is possible, but only if rich people see it as being to their advantage. That's also possible, and has happened in other countries, as you know. But it takes a lot of time and a lot of convincing from smart people, and many teeny tiny steps.

 

For that Obama was too much. They didn't accept what he wanted. Hillary Clinton will take tinier steps, leaving us dissatisfied ... but she'll be more successful. She will move the center of entire spectrum slightly to the left.

 

That's what she learned from the universal healthcare failure in the early 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The normal curve above models the entire political spectrum, not just the Democrats. If you model the Democrats only, you don't get a normal curve, you get a curve with a hump on the right. That would be like modeling men's height by only looking at men under 5'8". Most of the people would be on the right of that curve too.

 

If you want to move the country to the left (a very reasonable and worthy goal, IMHO :D) you have to move the center of the entire political spectrum to the left.

 

American Conservatives tend to believe what their chosen talking heads tell them. So, bizarrely they look to leaders like Trump to solve the dilemma of economic inequality. Moving the entire spectrum to the left is probably not in the cards as long as quality education does not become more widespread.

 

 

Now, that is possible, but takes time and work. To some degree it's happened socially. Gays can marry, serve in the military, interracial couples are accepted, racism is not defeated, but is seen as wrong in large companies and in bad taste socially in 65% of the population (roughly). The reason this had happened socially is that none of that hurts the bank accounts of rich people.

 

Precisely.

 

So, moving economically to the left is possible, but only if rich people see it as being to their advantage. That's also possible, and has happened in other countries, as you know. But it takes a lot of time and a lot of convincing from smart people, and many teeny tiny steps.

 

 

Those tiny steps will be to make it possible for the masses, including Conservatives to get a quality education, if able. With a respect for knowledge and especially, the scientific method, they will increasingly turn away from the talking heads and inevitably move toward the left.

 

For that Obama was too much. They didn't accept what he wanted. Hillary Clinton will take tinier steps, leaving us dissatisfied ... but she'll be more successful. She will move the center of entire spectrum slightly to the left.

 

That's what she learned from the universal healthcare failure in the early 90s.

 

 

Hillary is big on education and I believe she is sincere. If she succeeds in providing more widespread, quality education, she will have started the ball rolling to move the entire electorate to the left.

 

Trump's followers, by and large, have on an exceeding low level of education. Gary Johnson and his running mate can't even name the leader of a foreign country. The entire Republican field, in the primaries, was dismally dull. This is a reflection of their constituents. (Goes both ways).

 

I am cautiously optimistic about Hillary. We will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am cautiously optimistic about Hillary. We will see.

Hey! We have 100% agreement on that! Yay! :D

 

I think centrist conservatives will come around to education too, because without it they get ... Trump .... and the tea party.

 

They thought they could ride the idiots to the presidency, and found out that the idiots found their strength and found a leaders (chiefly, as you call him, der Trumpfkopfk) that made them feel good in their idiocy.

 

They need to lose big time for the central conservatives to recapture and control the Republican party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...