The Plot to Rig the 2008 Election.

[SoulOnIce]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle3204034.ece

[CaptChucky]

We always have to assume the money and power boys want to keep both. Do you think they worry about such things as fair elections?

[bartl]

http://comment.independent.co.uk/com...cle3204034.ece

Hmmmm.... the article starts out by showing the author doesn't have a clue as to how the American electoral process works, even in theory.

[Steven Grant]

In point of fact, though, even Gov. Schwarzenegger has denounced this initiative as dirty politics - and it's his own party backing it.

- Grant

[mattx110]

Hmmmm.... the article starts out by showing the author doesn't have a clue as to how the American electoral process works, even in theory.

neither do most americans. we still knows it's wrong.;)

[bartl]

neither do most americans. we still knows it's wrong.;)

No election has ever been altered by "faithless electors", and the system is designed to make the electors more or less rubber stamps (and the Supreme Court has OK'd laws which require electors to vote for the people the represent). So, the electoral college pretty much makes a balance between states and the population as a whole. It's a lot more democratic than the U.N., for example, where a country of a billion people and a country of a couple of hundred thousand people have the same number of votes. And it's not about to change, either, because the states with lower populations don't want to get screwed (in New York City, where there was a similar system, a Supreme Court decision outlawing it caused a situation where Staten Island became, both literally and figuratively, the dumping ground for the city, and voted to secede from the city as a result).

It's up to the state legislatures how to set up the electoral votes. Two states already have proportional elections of electors.It's perfectly legal and honest for opposition party in a heavily populated state to try and push for proportional electors, regardless of which party it is. If it were the Democrats pushing in a heavily Republican state, would you be upset?

[Steven Grant]

Did Staten Island ever secede?

- Grant

[mattx110]

No election has ever been altered by "faithless electors", and the system is designed to make the electors more or less rubber stamps (and the Supreme Court has OK'd laws which require electors to vote for the people the represent). So, the electoral college pretty much makes a balance between states and the population as a whole. It's a lot more democratic than the U.N., for example, where a country of a billion people and a country of a couple of hundred thousand people have the same number of votes. And it's not about to change, either, because the states with lower populations don't want to get screwed (in New York City, where there was a similar system, a Supreme Court decision outlawing it caused a situation where Staten Island became, both literally and figuratively, the dumping ground for the city, and voted to secede from the city as a result).

It's up to the state legislatures how to set up the electoral votes. Two states already have proportional elections of electors.It's perfectly legal and honest for opposition party in a heavily populated state to try and push for proportional electors, regardless of which party it is. If it were the Democrats pushing in a heavily Republican state, would you be upset?

Yes. I really would.

[Paul McEnery]

.It's perfectly legal and honest for opposition party in a heavily populated state to try and push for proportional electors,?

No it isn't.

[bartl]

Did Staten Island ever secede?

- Grant

No. New York State does not have binding referendums; the vote was to request that New York State allow it to secede. Then Giuliani got elected mayor, and Staten Island started getting better treatment, and the issue was tabled.

[bartl]

No it isn't.

How is it dishonest?

[Paul McEnery]

How is it dishonest?

How is it not?

[FunkyGreenJerusalem]

How is it dishonest?

Because they lost under the system they agreed to, and now that they've lost want the rules changed because they think they will win - and let's face it, if they had won, they'd be calling foul at the other side for trying to do this.

[Paul McEnery]

Because they lost under the system they agreed to, and now that they've lost want the rules changed because they think they will win - and let's face it, if they had won, they'd be calling foul at the other side for trying to do this.

See, I was working on the basis that the obvious reason they're doing this is to hand the Presidency to the Republican Party; otherwise it would be a nationwide initiative.

But this isn't what they're saying the point is. In fact, I dare say they're concealing that part of their agenda.

Aside from the fact that they'd be disenfranchising not only the Dems in California, but the Dems throughout the country. Which is a bit naughty.

Oh, and by "a bit naughty" I mean "I'd like to get hold of the fuckers responsible for this and shove their heads into a jet turbine, one at a time".

[mattx110]

See, I was working on the basis that the obvious reason they're doing this is to hand the Presidency to the Republican Party; otherwise it would be a nationwide initiative.

But this isn't what they're saying the point is. In fact, I dare say they're concealing that part of their agenda.

Aside from the fact that they'd be disenfranchising not only the Dems in California, but the Dems throughout the country. Which is a bit naughty.

Oh, and by "a bit naughty" I mean "I'd like to get hold of the fuckers responsible for this and shove their heads into a jet turbine, one at a time".

Ah, the old Indy and the lost crusade big guy in the propellor special...