Page 1 of 1
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:19 pm
by GORDON
http://washingtonexaminer.com/york-wh....2504163
1100 felons voted in the election. They skew democrat. Franken won by 312 votes.
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:30 pm
by TPRJones
Easiest solution to voter fraud is to require any election to end with a 66/33 majority or better to count. That should be more than enough to cover the fraud margin. And if no one can get 66% of the vote, then no one fills the office until next time there are elections.
What's the point of having someone in office that less than 2/3rds of the people approve of, anyway?
Edited By TPRJones on 1344375047
Posted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 5:40 pm
by GORDON
Did Obamacare pass the senate by 1 vote?
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:29 am
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote:Easiest solution to voter fraud is to require any election to end with a 66/33 majority or better to count. That should be more than enough to cover the fraud margin. And if no one can get 66% of the vote, then no one fills the office until next time there are elections.
What's the point of having someone in office that less than 2/3rds of the people approve of, anyway?
66% of all theoretically available voters or people who show up? Because all those people not showing up pretty much aren't approving, either.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 12:03 pm
by TPRJones
Of those showing up, I guess. We can't expect perfection, after all.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:31 pm
by Malcolm
You could have offices that remain vacant forever. Not that I'm saying it's a tremendous downside.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:37 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:You could have offices that remain vacant forever. Not that I'm saying it's a tremendous downside.
That's an interesting idea. A majority vote of "None of the Above" would actually leave a seat vacant. I bet the majority of congressional seats would be left empty, at least for 1 term.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 2:45 pm
by TPRJones
I see no problem with that at all. Congress is supposed to steer the ship of state. It's not the engine. We'd just keep going on the same course if Congress were mostly vacant for awhile. And given how they perform most of the time that would be much preferable to them being in there messing things up worse.
If it became a problem, then maybe we'd have better candidates as good people stepped up to do what was needed. Part of the reason there are no good candidates these days is that the job of Congress is not one that is all that vital and necessary. It's just a job for the power hungry and greedy.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 3:50 pm
by TheCatt
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:32 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Malcolm wrote:You could have offices that remain vacant forever. Not that I'm saying it's a tremendous downside.
That's an interesting idea. A majority vote of "None of the Above" would actually leave a seat vacant. I bet the majority of congressional seats would be left empty, at least for 1 term.
I've been saying for years that folk should be allowed to cast anti-votes. Instead of electing the person most everyone votes for, elect the one the least amount of people despise.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:03 pm
by GORDON
I think it would be great if there were too few congressmen in office to keep passing laws every day.... then there would be nothing for the President to do... legally. The President seems to do whatever he wants for the most part, though, and the Supreme Court doesn't seem too interested in stopping him any more.
Our government and country is well and truly fucked.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:14 pm
by TPRJones
You assume we would still have a President, given those voting options. I'm not so sure.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:21 pm
by GORDON
Yeah, well, can you imagine our current crop of highly honorable elected officials actually voting themselves out of power, just because it was good for the country?
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:49 pm
by TPRJones
No. It would take another Constitutional Convention.
Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:50 pm
by GORDON
And that means revolution, which I have been saying for a while.