[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by Adagio43

Did you just equate one, person one vote with the electoral college?

We are a Constitutional Republic, which means we vote for representatives to make decisions for us, the body politic. In a Presidential election you are actually voting for Electors who will render their vote in the Electoral College based on your vote and those of your fellow citizens in the State. Whatever candidate is determined to have received the most votes is who they will cast their ballot for as per the Constitution. So yes, one person, one vote, as it has been since our founding.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Have YOU been watching the news at all? Those "thousands of votes that were found to be changed or not even counted" turned out to be fake news.

Recounts, audits, and governors of the mostly-GOP states in question have already determined that the end result of their state's votes are the same, even after accounting for a few minor glitches.

It wasn't thousands of votes. It was dozens. And even switching those all to EITHER party - would not have any change in the outcome. The person who won those states, won them by enough votes that those glitches had no impact at all on the outcome.

Oh, so the over 5,000 ballots found in GA that were not counted is fake news? Don't you have a TV?

[Bill14564]

Here is an example where RCV could have prevented what seems to be a case of intentionally misleading voters:

Florida investigating third-party candidate who ran for state Senate | TheHill

There is also a long article in the Washington Post but you might need a subscription to read it.

Quick summary: The Republican candidate was running against the Dem candidate Jose Rodriguez. Late in the game, Alex Rodriguez filed to run as an independent. The Rep won with 48% of the vote and a margin of just 34 votes. Alex Rodriguez, the independent, took more than 6,000 votes. Based on no history in politics, no backing, and a change in affiliation from Rep to Ind in order to run, it appears that Alex Rodriguez ran simply to confuse voters and take votes from the Dem candidate with the same name... and it worked.

Since only a plurality is required, the Rep will take office but was this really the will of the people? If a majority was required than a runoff would be held at some considerable expense. If RCV was used, the Ind candidate would be dropped and his votes distributed according to the individual voters' designated second choice.

If this was just a successful dirty trick then RCV could have cured it. As it stands, it appears that what appears to be a clever attempt at misleading voters was rewarded.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

No, you can't. You must register as a member of a party in order to vote in their primary.

Not always, there is a special case in FL where voters of both parties can vote in a primary. Easy enough to look up, you can even refer to the recent Sumter County Commissioner's race for more info, but not what this thread is about.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

We are a Constitutional Republic, which means we vote for representatives to make decisions for us, the body politic. In a Presidential election you are actually voting for Electors who will render their vote in the Electoral College based on your vote and those of your fellow citizens in the State. Whatever candidate is determined to have received the most votes is who they will cast their ballot for as per the Constitution. So yes, one person, one vote, as it has been since our founding.

I believe you will find that there is nothing that requires the Electors to vote according to the popular vote in the State. Some States (Maine and Nebraska) split their Electoral votes. Other States have agreed choose their Electors based on the National popular vote regardless of their State's vote.

[GoPacers]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I believe you will find that there is nothing that requires the Electors to vote according to the popular vote in the State. Some States (Maine and Nebraska) split their Electoral votes. Other States have agreed choose their Electors based on the National popular vote regardless of their State's vote.

You should fact check what you read/hear. Same states do require electors to vote for the winning candidate in that state. Not all, but some.

No states allocate their electoral votes based on the national popular vote at this time. They have agreed to do so only if the states in the "pact" control 270 electoral votes. It's questionable at best if that would ever happen.

[jacksonbrown]

I've been following this "nonpolitical" thread, nonpolitical in the sense that it affects all U.S. citizens, regardless of political affiliation.

Particularly troubling is the method by which votes are counted.

For local and state officials to commission (and pay for) a suite of computers, where counting algorithms are programmed by a handful of individuals is nonsensical AND criminal.

Not to mention (yes, a stupid idiom often used by politicians) that the machines are connected to the internet, or thumb drives, or wi-fi networks, or LAN's during the vote counting process.

Even PBS agrees, click here.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by GoPacers

You should fact check what you read/hear. Same states do require electors to vote for the winning candidate in that state. Not all, but some.

No states allocate their electoral votes based on the national popular vote at this time. They have agreed to do so only if the states in the "pact" control 270 electoral votes. It's questionable at best if that would ever happen.

Half-full or half-empty, I believe we can both agree that the statement

Whatever candidate is determined to have received the most votes is who they will cast their ballot for as per the Constitution.

is not accurate.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Adagio43

I don’t understand how winning the majority of the vote can be considered, “mob rule.”

Very simple , as we witnessed in this election. Mail votes still coming in after election over. Mail voter’s had plenty time to mail in vote, there NO reason mail in votes being received after Election Day, they should of been cutoff week before election. That way couldn’t back door districts when election is close at end of day to manufacture thousands of votes after election time dead line. And it you didn’t think it happen very very naive.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yes it is fake news.

There were 2755 missing ballots found. Of those 2755, 449 of them were for the current person occupying the oval office. The rest of them were for Biden.

They WERE counted, because they had to be counted once they were discovered. The outcome was no different, however it does speak to the paranoia and conspiracy theories created by the left, that the right is intentionally obscuring ballots nationwide.

Because, y'know - if it was the left obscuring ballots nationwide, the vast majority of those "missing" votes would've been for the current occupant of the oval office.

I mean why would the left hide, destroy, or otherwise obscure votes for their own guy?

So, why was ballots coming in after election was over. not allow observation and put cardboard up on glass, why was there fake police at entry blocking entry? This election was stolen weeks and months before Election Day.