I'm Tired: A Soldiers View From The Front

Again explain the difference between the two parties? Isn't the NC Senate a democratically controlled congress? Why is their such a disagreement within the party. I just wish that we would stop making excuses for people that do not take the time to register and vote. By allowing same day registration you open the election up to increased fraud. Why do we not investigate internet voting as a way to get more voter turnout?

 

With one minor difference, you just described Mr. Bush.

 

You change it to popular vote and any state outside the top 15 will never be visited except by candidates that are from there because they would not matter.

Propaganda, I prefer to look at results.

 

Exactly, the blurring of the two parties. Where are the Republicans? The only candidate I know running on the traditional Republican values is Dr. Ron Paul. Between the main stream media, special interest groups, and the bureaucracy of government it seems the intent is to continue to elect candidates that will maintain the status quo. the only thing that changes is there party affiliation, but the policies remain the same.

 

How does that relate to my statement? You believe the progem would help one party over the other by your own words.

Yes, I believe that is correct, is there a point?

Because different people hold different opinions.

Because it helps that 'other' party as you have already stated...

Any action that increases the voter rolls by definition increases the potential for fraud. The cost/benefit ratio is the key.

I see that coming at some point just as we have internet filing of taxes, renewal of automobile licenses and the like.

 

The same for the electoral college, but there will never be a way to give those states an equal footing with the other states without being grossly unfair to the larger states.

 

lol you three kill me. I could just imagine sitting at a cookout with you three around. FUN FUN FUN:mrgreen:

 

Thought hught summed it up pretty nicely on what did you miss thread

what's wrong SS? don't want to give us your views anymore. They are always fun to ponder :mrgreen:

 

Wow, you guys have been busy in the last, what 12 hours? Pirate, instead of answering all your comments, since Wayne has already done so, let me say I pretty much agree with what he has said about the whole audit issue.

Moving on to another of your concerns, presidential elections, I'm not sure I understand your position exactly, Pirate. Are you saying each state should have an equal vote? Regardless of population? The electoral college system does give smaller states a little more weight vis-a-vis their population, since every state has at least 3 electoral votes. But you seem to be concentrating on the number of states each candidate won. Could you elaborate on that a little bit?

 

After seeing you and Hugh and Wayne talking I realize that I simply have no input. :mrgreen: My responses are not as serious and are way less critical. But you guys seems to have fun at it so rock on.

 

I do not see eye to eye with almost anything about California. I do not choose to live in that state. Perhaps I like what is going on in Wyoming and I choose to move there. As it currently stands there are a limited number of states that actually decide who the president is and with a popular vote it becomes fewer. There will be a day of reckoning if we continue down the current path of a large national government forcing their will on states and people when you have
no choice in the representation.

 

What is the question?

 

I believe I already stated that we should start using modern technology, stop gerrymandering districts and ballots based on partisan politics, and a realistic process to adding other parties to the ballot.


For the record I blame both parties and frankly have a hard time telling the difference between the two anymore.

 

Neither of these choices can include Wyoming as the decider except in very unusual situations. How would that ever be accomplished without ignoring the larger population states completely?

I believe they tried that in the 1860's with little success and there are greater differentials now than then in the capability of the states. How do you give the choice in representation when there is a micro-minority wishing to make the decision?

 

but the Declaration of Independence assured us of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no fundamental way to guarantee that with a large federal government.

Simple, it is called a revolution and it is building steam. Look to the actions in New Hampshire, Texas, California, or Michigan and you can see a republic that is in desperate need of leaders and healing. We continue to be ignorant of the facts and would rather bicker.

 

Wait a minute folks, the Electoral College was designed to give the small states more influence not less. In essence a vote in Bismarck has greater weight than mine in North Carolina. So if the Dakotas are ignored now they stand no chance once it is abandoned.

 

Sorry you must not have been listening as I have reiterated it many times .

That would take a little more time than I have right now, but I will come back to it.

 

Paranoia strikes deep.

Currently the votes are already stored in a database, it's just that in the current system, they are fed in by the election personnel one ballot at a time. We can cut out the middle man by installing computerized voting machines. These machines would not be attached to the phone lines, but will store the votes in them directly. Then, after the polls are closed, the data memory unit(s) would be transferred to a central location, much like the paper ballots are today, for tally. A "receipt" can be printed for each voter, similar to the receipts printed out at the gas pump when you pay at the pump.

 

That is an opinion that is countered by any opposing opinion. The Constitution also guarantees us equal treatment everywhere in the country, which cannot be accomplished without the strength of the federal government. As the Constitution is the primary binding legal document I would think it must take priority over the personal opinion on what the Declaration of Independence provides and how that provision may be accomplished.

.

I believe that was similar to the actions in the 1860s as well.

Except you disagree with everything Californian right ... :lol: :lol: I agree we need a good leadership, but that does not indicate the stronger state governments would be better as that would require more good leaders rather than less.

No, I believe we see the facts differently, especially when opinions are considered to be factual.

 

Perhaps the Constitution outweighs it, but the Declaration of Independence reinforces the rights to adjust the inequity.