REPORTER: Do you trust the election process this time around?

[Lastamender]

All of them legal accurate and fair.

So, what do you have

GFY

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

 

[otto105]

GFY

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf

Hilarious

Isn’t the Texas AG corrupt..

 

[Seymour Flops]

Lol pointing out when someone lies isn't cheating you miserable piece of shit.

It absolutely is cheating when you agreed to the rules beforehand of no fact checking, when you only fact check one side because of partisan bias, and when what you call “lie” is a disagreement over what to call things. in this case specifically over whether people who entered the country illegally are “illegal aliens.”

But, of course, you know all that. If you were as stupid as you pretend to be, you would not be able to type on a message board.

This is why it is pointless for a Trump supporter to argue with a Democrat or a RINO about whether there was or was not cheating in the 2020 election. The Trump supporter gives evidence of the cheating while the Democrat or RINO pretend they don’t know what cheating is.

 

[DBA]

That’s silly. The people in every state can vote and their votes count for the popular vote which means they’re represented.

Our founding fathers didn’t think the people should vote for president at all, so we already have totally changed their plan.

Unlike many countries, the US is made up of states, each with their own sets of laws. The US is a very large country with desperate ideas and values. If only a relatively few populous cites could decide the election, many, if not most, states would not be represented. People in NYC don’t have the same values, morals or life experiences as people in rural areas, in fact, I know many people from upstate NY that have moved to my area and they all complain that they they have to live with the political decisions of those in NYC and had that their vote seemingly doesn’t count. The same can be said for CA. In their cases, they would much prefer voting to be at the county level, not the state level. They have little in common with city dwellers. It is a completely different world. Just imagine that on a national scale.

 

[Marener]

Unlike many countries, the US is made up of states, each with their own sets of laws. The US is a very large country with desperate ideas and values. If only a relatively few populous cites could decide the election, many, if not most, states would not be represented. People in NYC don’t have the same values, morals or life experiences as people in rural areas, in fact, I know many people from upstate NY that have moved to my area and they all complain that they they have to live with the political decisions of those in NYC and had that their vote seemingly doesn’t count. The same can be said for CA. In their cases, they would much prefer voting to be at the county level, not the state level. They have little in common with city dwellers. It is a completely different world. Just imagine that on a national scale.

First of all, the state borders are arbitrary lines drawn upon a map. They are not designed for any specific purpose other than arbitrary division of areas. You are granting substantial power based on arbitrary decision, which to me make no sense. Our government is not and should not be dependent on arbitrary decisions.

Second, the problem you describe is actually substantially worse under the current system. Given almost every state operates in a winner take all approach, the few cities already control the outcome in many places. Chicago controls Illinois's votes. New York City controls New York's vote. Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, and on and on.

In a popular vote model, those rural votes in states with large cities actually matter. It would actually make elections MORE competitive since a candidate would actually want to appeal broadly to the country. As it stands now, the parties do not need to appeal to states that they aren't going to lose. Republicans ignore California. Democrats ignore the south. Instead of representing the country broadly, they all wind up trying to appeal to a handful of swing states because, again, they happen to be evenly balanced in party makeup.

The current system does not protect rural voters. The current system does not promote broad appeal. A popular vote would.

 

[DBA]

First of all, the state borders are arbitrary lines drawn upon a map. They are not designed for any specific purpose other than arbitrary division of areas. You are granting substantial power based on arbitrary decision, which to me make no sense. Our government is not and should not be dependent on arbitrary decisions.

Second, the problem you describe is actually substantially worse under the current system. Given almost every state operates in a winner take all approach, the few cities already control the outcome in many places. Chicago controls Illinois's votes. New York City controls New York's vote. Seattle, Minneapolis, Denver, and on and on.

In a popular vote model, those rural votes in states with large cities actually matter. It would actually make elections MORE competitive since a candidate would actually want to appeal broadly to the country. As it stands now, the parties do not need to appeal to states that they aren't going to lose. Republicans ignore California. Democrats ignore the south. Instead of representing the country broadly, they all wind up trying to appeal to a handful of swing states because, again, they happen to be evenly balanced in party makeup.

The current system does not protect rural voters. The current system does not promote broad appeal. A popular vote would.

83% of the US population lives in cities and urban areas. The current system absolutely gives rural voters more representation. Just as rural voters are out of touch will big city problems(homelessness, crime, etc.) urban voters are out of touch with problems in rural areas.

 

[Marener]

83% of the US population lives in cities and urban areas. The current system absolutely gives rural voters more representation. Just as rural voters are out of touch will big city problems(homelessness, crime, etc.) urban voters are out of touch with problems in rural areas.

It gives SOME rural voters more say and MOST rural voters NO say.

A popular vote would give ALL rural voters SOME say.

 

[DBA]

Where do you get that most rural voters have no say with the electoral college? I would argue the opposite as do most Democrats who don’t like the electoral college because it gives rural voters too much say in their minds.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Seymour Flops]

Where do you get that most rural voters have no say with the electoral college? I would argue the opposite as do most Democrats who don’t like the electoral college because it gives rural voters too much say in their minds.

Exactly.

By “too much say” Democrats mean that it’s bad for country bumpkins to have an equal say as those sophisticated urban dwellers.

 

[dblack]

Exactly.

By “too much say” Democrats mean that it’s bad for country bumpkins to have an equal say as those sophisticated urban dwellers.

The electoral college arrangement prevents a party from focusing purely on the concerns of urban voters. It demands a more balanced approach. That's why Democrats don't like it.

 

[DBA]

Exactly.

By “too much say” Democrats mean that it’s bad for country bumpkins to have an equal say as those sophisticated urban dwellers.

Yeah, my take on it is that urban dwellers tend to all think alike. It is human nature to do so when you are crammed into one place. Rural voters tend to think for themselves. This explains why Democrats are just about always lockstep on everything while Republicans have tend to argue more often amongst themselves. To each his own, but I prefer not to be part of the group think.

 

[john doe 101]

It absolutely is cheating when you agreed to the rules beforehand of no fact checking, when you only fact check one side because of partisan bias, and when what you call “lie” is a disagreement over what to call things. in this case specifically over whether people who entered the country illegally are “illegal aliens.”

But, of course, you know all that. If you were as stupid as you pretend to be, you would not be able to type on a message board.

This is why it is pointless for a Trump supporter to argue with a Democrat or a RINO about whether there was or was not cheating in the 2020 election. The Trump supporter gives evidence of the cheating while the Democrat or RINO pretend they don’t know what cheating is.

Election fraud is resolved in court, not a message board, dummy. You saw what that one red hatted election official got yesterday.... 9 years. Justice served.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Election fraud is resolved in court, not a message board, dummy. You saw what that one red hatted election official got yesterday.... 9 years. Justice served.

The lawfare will soon be ended.

 

[john doe 101]

The lawfare will soon be ended.

Lol!

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

That sounds simple. I have my birth certificate and a passport, but you'd be surprised at how many American citizens have neither one.

And?

 

[Billo_Really]

Trump is asked if he trusts the election process. He says he’ll tell you after it’s over, meaning it depends on if he wins. He doesn’t even pretend to support the democratic process. MAGA supporters are such liars because no honest person can defend this.

Talk about a drop the mic thread?

Good one, brah!

 

[ThisIsMe]

Most of the City of Milwaukee was mail-in votes. The city uses a centralized vote counting process and usually drops hours after the polls close in presidential elections. You can look at vote totals in link below.

Comparing How the City and Every Milwaukee County Suburb Voted in 2016 and 2020

Ok, I’m not disputing that Biden won Michigan, or Wisconsin, my issue is how it happened. They expect us to believe that in both states, the overnight vote tally’s both went nearly all for one candidate, and hardly any for the other.

I know repubs are more about voting DAY but still, with Covid and the ease of the vote by mail system, you’d think SOME on the right would vote by mail

According to those graphs, it would indicate that almost none did. I just find that hard to believe.

Again, if the colors of those lines were reversed, you’d be here making my argument, as would all of the left. The only reason they defend it is because it was a benefit to their side. If it wasn’t, there would be cries of foul, we all know this.

 

[ThisIsMe]

No, it doesn't.

Did you read the fact check?

I did read the fact check, which is why I posted it. In it, they state that the reason for differences in number of registered voters, and number of votes cast is because voter rolls are not updated often enough in a lot of places. People are still on the rolls in areas where they no longer reside, or for other reasons.

So, that’s why I’m in favor of voter roll purged every couple of years. It’s not too much to ask that people’s submit their voter registrations every 3-5 years.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Haha, you just debunked your own nonsense.

Good stuff.

Perhaps I did, but I’ve made a great case for voter roll purges