[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
[–] lens163 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
I hate Kansas
a lot
like a lot a lot.
Tired of living in this state, just wish I knew where I could go -_-
Dorothy tried Oz. Didn't like it. Closed her eyes, clicked her heels three times, and wished herself back home to Kensas. It worked! Try it, close your eyes, make a wish (Hollywood? Frisco? Athens? Paris?), and click your heels. You never know, it might work for you too. :-)
[–] Cid 4 points -2 points 2 points (+2|-4) ago
Honestly, who cares if there's fraud? It's not like our votes are what gets people elected (in presidential elections). We all vote to tell the electors who we want, but they are under no obligation to vote based on the popular results. Not only that but with the way the electors are dived up among the states it's not even like everyone's vote is equal. This isn't democracy.
I just don't see the point in complaining about cheating a broken system. My priorities are different I guess.
[–] Boredhermit ago
I would like to add to this, because I feel the same way. Where does it state that the "electors" have to vote based on "the peoples" vote?
Where does it state that the "electors" have to vote based on "the peoples" vote?
Nowhere. Don't get me wrong, they will almost always certainty vote the way the people want, and there's very very few cases where they didn't, but the fact it exists this way leaves an opening for potential corruption and exploitation at the cost of democracy. That's a dangerous exploit to leave unfixed, especially with the direction America has gone and with how little power the people actually have.
[–] [deleted] ago
It's not like our votes are what gets people elected (in presidential elections). We all vote to tell the electors who we want, but they are under no obligation to vote based on the popular results.
There have been 9 faithless electors in the last hundred years, and none have affected the outcome of the election. That means about 99.93% of the time, they vote for the candidate they are pledged to. Seems like an odd thing to get worked up about.
[–] Cid 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It exists that way and that's enough. There's also the issue of elector distribution among the states leading to people in some states having a vote that is worth more than others in other states. It's not that I don't care about fraud, I would just rather have an honest system first.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 22 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago
[–] MayTheDerpBeWithYou 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
Alas, but only one upvoat to give.
[–] didntsayeeeee 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
Clickbait. Kansas hates her! This mom mathematician proved voter fraud with this one weird trick!
Kansas isn't "trying to silence her". She's just not allowed her hands on the ballots for various legal reasons.
I haven't read her alleged paper so I don't know whether her case is reasonable or not. Judging by the standards of most of the "here, be outraged by this!" shit I read on the Internet, I am guessing it's BS.
[–] cynoclast [S] ago (edited ago)
Analyzing election returns at a precinct level, Clarkson found that candidate support was correlated, to a statistically significant degree, with the size of the precinct. In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true.
The irregularities are isolated to precincts that use “Central Tabulator” voting machines — machines that have previously been shown to be vulnerable to hacking. The effects are significant and widespread: According to their analysis, Mitt Romney could have received over a million extra votes in the 2012 Republican primary, mostly coming at the expense of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.** President Obama also ceded significant votes to John McCain due to this irregularity**, as well.
It's painfully obvious that entrenched republicans are behind this, and that they're committing election fraud.
Based on your reaction to these facts, I'm guessing you're a republican. Maybe you shouldn't be, since your party is obviously corrupt and resorting to things that in other countries we would rightly a dictatorship or authoritative regime in order to stay in power.
I'm not a democrat, because they're almost as bad, but corruption is corruption. There's no reason in a democracy to dispute a recount, or to deny this mathematician access to data that could prove or disprove her hypothesis.
[–] oowensby 0 points 11 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago
Paper ballots, marked with a pencil, collected and counted in the presence of witnesses representing the candidates. How is this so hard to implement?
[–] seerick 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Why Pencil and not Pen? Just curious since Pen cannot be erased. Also, I agree - can't trust those machines, to much opportunity for fraud.
[–] oowensby 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Pencils can be erased; but the erasures are obvious. Do you think that all voters are going to complete their ballots without making mistakes? If a pen was used, a whole ballot might have to be redone to avoid ambiguous marks that could be challenged by poll watchers.
[–] TalkingAnimal 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
All my adult life I've used a felt-tipped pen to vote. It works fine if I mess up my ballot, they give me a new one.
[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago
It's not, it's just hard to corrupt. Paper ballots by mail would be a better idea. Oregon does this and it's awesome. Sooooo convenient.
[–] oowensby 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I am afraid that, if the ballots were not escorted and watched basically from the voter to the counting table, there would be too many opportunities for tampering. I note that you like the vote by mail Oregon system; but, I think it would be the easiest system to corrupt. Most voter fraud, that is actually caught in the US, is committed with absentee ballots — that can be mailed in.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
[–] FriedrichNietzsche ago
It's bad to have people being watched when voting. It may pressure people into voting differently
[–] oowensby 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Secrecy is necessary for the actual marking and sealing of the ballot.
[–] gosso920 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
"I'm 'Landslide Lyndon' Johnson, and I approve this messaage."
[–] oowensby 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I see what you did there.