Compulsory voting is a good thing.

The tax payer pays- what a surprise.
I don't know the procedure if there Is a second null and void election.

 

There is no choice just two versions, the original or the one modified by amendment. In the original the people elected for the electors that interviewed then chose two candidates that they forwarded to the national government with the number of votes for each.

After the amendment, the people voted in a national election and electors where assigned to the candidate with the most popular votes for that state.

In the first instance you ended up with a chief magistrate qualified for the job. The second method results in the clown with the most promises for benefit of the governed (outside government called bribery) and as a result with little qualifications.

 

But I would bet it would be safe to say that it will in all probability never happen. Would be interesting if it did though.

 

why vote? My son who is almost 50 has never voted. He says Washington is going to do what Washington wants to do regardless of what the people think or want or don't want. He figures we screwed regardless of who sits in Washington. He is probably right.

Now here is something I just received from Gallup. Speaking of Trump and his persona.

Trump Disapproval Rooted in Character Concerns

http://www.gallup.com/poll/214091/t...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

Right on time was that article and poll.

 

Then what? Each party nominates someone else and we vote again.

 

The original one seems to be more sensible. To an outsider, the role of the EC seems to be surplus to needs.

 

No idea. And not relevant.

 

A "declaration" does not amount to "proof". Proof is show me a Birth Certificate, a Passport, a "Real-ID" with a gold star on it. Checking I box that says "I declare I am a Citizen" is not proof. We wouldn't even accept that when it comes to potentially underage drinkers, any clerk that accepted such a thing and sold to an underage drinker would be arrested.

 

That's not how it works. There is no provision for that.

 

Most of us couldn't care less what "outsiders" think.

 

What Amendment? Unless something happened that I'm uninformed about, the State Legislatures are the sole authority on how to allocate their Presidential Electors. The SOLE authority.

As a practical matter, all 50 States allow the people to vote, with most (but not all) using a winner gets all method of Electors. But they could, simply by deciding to do so change that. They could decide that a coin-toss at 9:43PM on election day would decide which Electors would go to Washington. Probably wouldn't be popular. Probably would result in a lot of Legislators being replaced at the next election. But is completely Constitutional and legal.

 

I'm glad you feel secure .

 

What we dont need are more laws that force people to do things.

I think we should hand everyone a beer on their way out the voting booth.

 

Sounds like a bribe to me. No?

 

Each state could do it that way, no constitutional amendment needed. The Constitution gives each state the power to choose the time, place, manner of holding elections to it. FYI, Nevada already has None of the Above on the ballot. But in Nevada if None of the Above wins, they award the second place finisher the office.

Also Nebraska and Maine have used their state power to award their electoral votes via congressional districts instead of the winner take all used by the other 48 states. Georgia has a run off if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote. You seen that in our special congressional district six election a couple of weeks ago. Lot's of leeway for the states. Louisiana uses election day as a jungle primary, they don't have primaries before election day. They place all candidates on the ballot and they too have a runoff if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote.

Plenty of possibilities if a state is willing. But if None of the Above is placed on the ballot, unlike Nevada today, it has to be given some teeth. Just having none of the above and then awarding the second place winner the office negates having none of the above on the ballot. Although instead of voting third party to show a voters frustrations over the candidates or nominees, none of the above does give them an outlet in Nevada.

 

Other things to think about, and this isn't just directed at you gc17, is that there are alol kinds of lists out there based on surveys, and other things. You could be in a neighborhood targeted as moderate, or Republicans. Your interactions with certain organizations can make you a target for certain parties. With the child being so relatively young, she might not have made any lists yet. And some of these lists are just phone numbers and addresses, witho way of knowing if the original person is still there, hence addressed to resident. The vectors are so many that voter registration is probably low on the the probability list.

 

Let's agree to disagree, the best way to get my voter info is my registration as I don't interact in any way with my state or local political party. I might add my daughter is 32 years old.

 

Then explain this-

 

To get the kind of changes necessary would require a constitutional amendment. The constitution gives the states the right to choose the time, place and manner of elections. Each state can and does choose and regulate what is needed for ballot access, the deadlines and time limits. States on their own can get rid of plurality voting if they so choose. We basically done that in Georgia by requiring a runoff if not candidate receives 50% plus one vote. Same for Louisiana. Even so, third parties still have a money problem issue. With money considered speech, that isn’t about to change either without a constitutional amendment. When the two major parties can afford to spent 50 million dollars on a congressional seat election, what chance does a third party candidates actually have?


Louisiana jungle style elections have always intrigued me. Listing all candidates on the ballot regardless of party. We did it that way in Georgia 6th special election. There were around 12 Republicans, 5 Democrats and 3 independents listed all on the same ballot. The top two went into a runoff. But it was a money issue once again. The top two finishers, Ossoff and Handel each had the most money and spent the most money. Usually the candidate with the most money wins unless it is relative even. Trump was an exception in last years presidential and Handel’s win another exception in Georgia’s 6th. But the 6th was a Republican leaning district, so even with a bit less money, the republican won.



Yes, the two major parties are very good pushing their propaganda of voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the third party candidate can’t win. So most of those who would vote third party, hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, the least worst candidate among the two major parties. They may hate both major party candidates, but end up voting for the one they hate the least. This is exactly what the two major parties want. They don’t care if you hate them, just as long as you vote for them.


I still don’t think ranking would do any good. When a person, not a political junkie goes into the voting booth, usually the only two names he recognizes is those of the two major parties. None of the rest. Most would probably give the major party candidates a one and a two and then scribble numbers in any sort of fashion for the rest not caring. Now die hard Republicans and Democrats would probably make the Libertarian or some other candidate their number two, but not the rest.

 

Russian hackers

 

I think you misunderstand what that little box implies. It is used in a court of law against you that you are a federal citizen so it must carry some weight.

So you are saying that without government verification of connection to that strawman with that has a name, I don't exist? You mean I'm not me? Are you saying that without one of them "Real-IDs" I can't travel in my automobile? Wow, what a criminal am I but hey I refrain from voting so it can't be all bad.

 

And where shall we start, Federalist Papers 68 wherein Hamilton supplies a most through explanation of how the chief magistrate was to be chosen as well as the President of the Senate also know as the Vice President which was the person with the second highest number of votes. Really did cause some interesting combinations as parties did not count. Good to have opposing views in the top of the executive department.

Then came Amendment XII wherein President and Vice President were voted separately, the vindication of the party system in 1804. Also according to the Federal Register, it was Amendment XII that changed the system to a popular vote for the President and Vice President that choose the electors which in and of itself is idiotic. With this system why even bother with individual electors and just have each Secretary of State of each state certify the electoral votes. Save a lot of time and money.

Having a chief magistrate was a very large contention during the ratification of the Constitution. By Hamilton's efforts, the states were assured of a chief magistrate with limited powers.

And now it has all turned into buzzard mating.

 

I would disagree. Let's hand them the beers before the voting booth. Probably have better results.

 

If someone does not wish to vote, that is their business.

After all, it seems to be the liberals who did not vote who are whining the loudest.