Only extremists and fascists won't accept election results (Al Gore, house seat, accuse)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The pandemic was an extraordinary set of circumstances that required measures be taken to facilitate voting without creating additional risk for citizens. How that was done varied according to each state's administration's response.
If the election process needs "tightening up" what about passing a national set of voting standards? Voting shouldn't *have* to be changed to accommodate distance voting, it should be a standard available to everyone, everywhere, via easily understood processes that don't vary from place to place. Let's put in place a national set of rules robust enough to handle pandemics, wildfires, citizen movements, etc.
You cannot simply pass a law in the US Congress dictate to the states how they shall conduct elections. You would need to amend the US Constitution.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderling
Like, say, something like the Voting Rights Act? Voting is so very fundamental to US citizens that there is no reason the rules surrounding it should vary from state to state and be subject to the whims of whatever political party has power at the local level.
Is it any better if we let the current Congress ram thru their partisan version of election laws, with Kamala Harris as the tie breaking vote?
If the final vote and process has integrity it should be able to withstand challenges, audits, recounts etc. Transparency shouldn't affect the outcome or process.
The question is one more interested in defending image of the institution or accuracy/integrity of the vote & processes.
You cannot simply pass a law in the US Congress dictate to the states how they shall conduct elections. You would need to amend the US Constitution.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Is it any better if we let the current Congress ram thru their partisan version of election laws, with Kamala Harris as the tie breaking vote?
That is pretty broad language that could absolutely allow for a national set of standards about who is deemed to be an eligible voter and guaranteeing them access to vote. Nothing in the above is contradictory to rules that say, for example, all citizens of the U.S. must be provided a way to vote that does not require showing up on a specific day in person. All states must provide early voting for XXX days for every General Election and provide means via US mail.
Just those declarations would go a long way toward lessening confusion. Minimum standards for guaranteeing voting access is in no way counter to the Consitution.
If the final vote and process has integrity it should be able to withstand challenges, audits, recounts etc. Transparency shouldn't affect the outcome or process.
The question is one more interested in defending image of the institution or accuracy/integrity of the vote & processes.
You are absolutely correct. And the election of 2020 proves the point dramatically. How many "forensic audits" do there have to be before people are reassured the voting was fair?
Neither side really wants Fair elections when it benefits them. Simple human nature. We are supposed to be our leaders check and balance but when we want to get left alone and live our lives and not pay attention to politics that's when opportunists gain power and nations change under the nose of their constituents. Now we have radical Dems running the show and inept Republicans who are ineffective at anything besides trying to ban abortions and annoy moderates with more nanny stateism. Noem...go and sue to nullify a constitutional amendment because you don't like how people voted. Smith may win governor of south Dakota because of that. Do not think a red wave is coming anymore.
Meanwhile both parties are corrupt and do nothing to stop the wealthy and foreign investors from their real estate binge as more homes end up on Airbnb and prices go ever higher. QE is a mechanism to grow the top 10% and make the wealth disparity even more which only harms the nation long term.
extremists were whining about the electoral college when they didn't get the results they wanted in 16 for sure
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntwrkguy1
Clearly, there were shenanigans at the polling places in certain swing states in 2020. What needs to happen is for the 2022 elections to be closely supervised. VERY closely supervised.
wont matter, they've already showed they can cheat(Eric Coomer said he made sure Trump didn't win) and get away with it because not enough people care about fair elections and people will not be held to account.
I don't remember either party truly questioning the overall integrity of our electoral process until 2020.
Did I miss something.
yes, apparently you missed the entire 2016-2020 range of years and months. It does not take much of a google to find video of person after person complaining of the 2016 election being stolen and they all resided with 1 party - hint, it rhymes with "whemocrat"
I don't understand why anyone, regardless of party, would not want to ensure election integrity.
Most nations that hold elections require photo ID for voters to vote.
But in the US when anyone wants to have photo ID to be presented for voting, it is presented as discriminatory and restrictive.
Many times I have heard people arguing that blacks are not capable of getting photo IDs.
My own sister-in-law insists that in her church in Maryland, there is an elderly black woman who has never been allowed to have a birth certificate, or social security card, or library card, or driver license [even though this woman has been receiving Social Security benefits for over 20 years].
Because they are either not allowed to have government ID, or else they do not have the mental capacity to follow the process required to get one. [please don't yell at me, I am not the one making this claim, it comes from the Democrat party].
Last edited by Submariner; 09-12-2022 at 07:01 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
