Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The fact is that the requirements for getting a drivers' license and registering to vote are 2 different things. To get a drivers' license you have to be domiciled in the state. To register to vote, you have to be planning to stay in the state for a definite period of time. That allows college students and military personnel to name a few groups to vote in NH. The fact that this was written for Breitbart is all that we need to know.
Head Of Trump 'Election Integrity' Probe Pens Wildly Misleading Op-Ed About Voter Fraud
The problem here is that you're saying that if a state chooses how it runs an election, it's bad.
Yet no doubt you'd be saying the electoral college is good, even though it gives people in some states more power than people in other states.
You can't have both.
You can't have Wyoming and Vermont with 3 times more power of their votes, or states like Florida and Ohio having more power because their close elections mean something whereas those other states don't matter and then whine about a state doing things in the manner in which they choose.
The problem here is that you're saying that if a state chooses how it runs an election, it's bad.
Yet no doubt you'd be saying the electoral college is good, even though it gives people in some states more power than people in other states.
You can't have both.
You can't have Wyoming and Vermont with 3 times more power of their votes, or states like Florida and Ohio having more power because their close elections mean something whereas those other states don't matter and then whine about a state doing things in the manner in which they choose.
False equivalency.
The problem could also be we're saying that if a state runs a fraudulent election, that's bad. Just sayin'
Your thoughts on the electoral college are irrelevant to the real problem; voter fraud stole elections in New Hampshire.
You're as fucking stupid as Trump & Kobach. My God, all you do is post stupid shit.Yep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016
Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.
Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.
It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.
Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016
PJ Media is an American conservative news, opinion and commentary collaborative blog that was founded in 2004. Its majority owner is technology entrepreneur, billionaire, and angel investor Aubrey Chernick. WikipediaYep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016
Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.
Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.
It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.
Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016
The fact is that the requirements for getting a drivers' license and registering to vote are 2 different things. To get a drivers' license you have to be domiciled in the state. To register to vote, you have to be planning to stay in the state for a definite period of time. That allows college students and military personnel to name a few groups to vote in NH. The fact that this was written for Breitbart is all that we need to know.
Head Of Trump 'Election Integrity' Probe Pens Wildly Misleading Op-Ed About Voter Fraud
You can rule out college students by their ages. You can also sample some of these 6000+ people to find out if they were staying in NH. Or, you can be a Democrat and object to any investigation. But, it was already known that Democrats were busing people to NH for voting.
Yep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016
Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.
Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.
It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.
Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016
The problem here is that you're saying that if a state chooses how it runs an election, it's bad.
Yet no doubt you'd be saying the electoral college is good, even though it gives people in some states more power than people in other states.
You can't have both.
You can't have Wyoming and Vermont with 3 times more power of their votes, or states like Florida and Ohio having more power because their close elections mean something whereas those other states don't matter and then whine about a state doing things in the manner in which they choose.
False equivalency.
The problem could also be we're saying that if a state runs a fraudulent election, that's bad. Just sayin'
Your thoughts on the electoral college are irrelevant to the real problem; voter fraud stole elections in New Hampshire.
Why is it bad? This is the system as it was set up. Ever seen a map for the 1800 Presidential election?
What do you notice?
That voting wasn't extensive.
A state CAN choose the EC voters however it likes.
Some states say a candidate wins all the EC votes. Others say a candidate wins a proportion.
How a state chooses it's EC votes is down to the state itself. If the state wants to have people coming in and registering on the day and not having time to check. It can do that. If it wants some people to vote twice, it can do that.
If you have an outdated system, and you want to keep said outdated system, don't complain it's corrupt.
The problem here is that you're saying that if a state chooses how it runs an election, it's bad.
Yet no doubt you'd be saying the electoral college is good, even though it gives people in some states more power than people in other states.
You can't have both.
You can't have Wyoming and Vermont with 3 times more power of their votes, or states like Florida and Ohio having more power because their close elections mean something whereas those other states don't matter and then whine about a state doing things in the manner in which they choose.
False equivalency.
The problem could also be we're saying that if a state runs a fraudulent election, that's bad. Just sayin'
Your thoughts on the electoral college are irrelevant to the real problem; voter fraud stole elections in New Hampshire.
Why is it bad? This is the system as it was set up. Ever seen a map for the 1800 Presidential election?
What do you notice?
That voting wasn't extensive.
A state CAN choose the EC voters however it likes.
Some states say a candidate wins all the EC votes. Others say a candidate wins a proportion.
How a state chooses it's EC votes is down to the state itself. If the state wants to have people coming in and registering on the day and not having time to check. It can do that. If it wants some people to vote twice, it can do that.
If you have an outdated system, and you want to keep said outdated system, don't complain it's corrupt.
Again, a false equivalency.
Outdated need not mean corrupt.
Further, old need not mean outdated.
However a state chooses to run its election, it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the existence of fraudulent votes, particularly when it's bad enough to throw that election.
One wonders if you'd be as unconcerned if it were Republican candidates benefiting?
The whole op is a sham.The fact is that the requirements for getting a drivers' license and registering to vote are 2 different things. To get a drivers' license you have to be domiciled in the state. To register to vote, you have to be planning to stay in the state for a definite period of time. That allows college students and military personnel to name a few groups to vote in NH. The fact that this was written for Breitbart is all that we need to know.
Head Of Trump 'Election Integrity' Probe Pens Wildly Misleading Op-Ed About Voter Fraud
You can rule out college students by their ages. You can also sample some of these 6000+ people to find out if they were staying in NH. Or, you can be a Democrat and object to any investigation. But, it was already known that Democrats were busing people to NH for voting.
The problem here is that you're saying that if a state chooses how it runs an election, it's bad.
Yet no doubt you'd be saying the electoral college is good, even though it gives people in some states more power than people in other states.
You can't have both.
You can't have Wyoming and Vermont with 3 times more power of their votes, or states like Florida and Ohio having more power because their close elections mean something whereas those other states don't matter and then whine about a state doing things in the manner in which they choose.
False equivalency.
The problem could also be we're saying that if a state runs a fraudulent election, that's bad. Just sayin'
Your thoughts on the electoral college are irrelevant to the real problem; voter fraud stole elections in New Hampshire.
Why is it bad? This is the system as it was set up. Ever seen a map for the 1800 Presidential election?
What do you notice?
That voting wasn't extensive.
A state CAN choose the EC voters however it likes.
Some states say a candidate wins all the EC votes. Others say a candidate wins a proportion.
How a state chooses it's EC votes is down to the state itself. If the state wants to have people coming in and registering on the day and not having time to check. It can do that. If it wants some people to vote twice, it can do that.
If you have an outdated system, and you want to keep said outdated system, don't complain it's corrupt.
Again, a false equivalency.
Outdated need not mean corrupt.
Further, old need not mean outdated.
However a state chooses to run its election, it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the existence of fraudulent votes, particularly when it's bad enough to throw that election.
One wonders if you'd be as unconcerned if it were Republican candidates benefiting?
No, I didn't say outdated had to mean corrupt.
What I did say was don't complain that the system is corrupt, complain that the system is so outdated it's not fit for service.
Essentially if there is corruption, it doesn't change much. Trump didn't win because the people wanted him to win. He won because A) the system is extremely restrictive and only one of two people will ever win in, and B) because the system allows people to do well in a few states and therefore win the election. There are only 12 important states. They make up 20% of the US population, and they decide the outcome of the election. That's ridiculous. Who cares if there's corruption, it doesn't stop the system being ridiculous.
Also, I didn't say old is outdated. The system happens to be old AND outdated though.
To be honest, I'm not up on what happened in New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with either of the two corrupt and power hungry political parties that are destroying the US.
I have a problem with THE SYSTEM. The system leads to so many problems, and leads to the President not really representing the people.
its official: voter fraud is real!
Kobach: It Appears Out-of-State Voters Changed Outcome of New Hampshire U.S. Senate Race
The problem here is that you're saying that if a state chooses how it runs an election, it's bad.
Yet no doubt you'd be saying the electoral college is good, even though it gives people in some states more power than people in other states.
You can't have both.
You can't have Wyoming and Vermont with 3 times more power of their votes, or states like Florida and Ohio having more power because their close elections mean something whereas those other states don't matter and then whine about a state doing things in the manner in which they choose.
The problem here is that you're saying that if a state chooses how it runs an election, it's bad.
Yet no doubt you'd be saying the electoral college is good, even though it gives people in some states more power than people in other states.
You can't have both.
You can't have Wyoming and Vermont with 3 times more power of their votes, or states like Florida and Ohio having more power because their close elections mean something whereas those other states don't matter and then whine about a state doing things in the manner in which they choose.
False equivalency.
The problem could also be we're saying that if a state runs a fraudulent election, that's bad. Just sayin'
Your thoughts on the electoral college are irrelevant to the real problem; voter fraud stole elections in New Hampshire.
Why is it bad? This is the system as it was set up. Ever seen a map for the 1800 Presidential election?
What do you notice?
That voting wasn't extensive.
A state CAN choose the EC voters however it likes.
Some states say a candidate wins all the EC votes. Others say a candidate wins a proportion.
How a state chooses it's EC votes is down to the state itself. If the state wants to have people coming in and registering on the day and not having time to check. It can do that. If it wants some people to vote twice, it can do that.
If you have an outdated system, and you want to keep said outdated system, don't complain it's corrupt.
Again, a false equivalency.
Outdated need not mean corrupt.
Further, old need not mean outdated.
However a state chooses to run its election, it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the existence of fraudulent votes, particularly when it's bad enough to throw that election.
One wonders if you'd be as unconcerned if it were Republican candidates benefiting?
No, I didn't say outdated had to mean corrupt.
What I did say was don't complain that the system is corrupt, complain that the system is so outdated it's not fit for service.
Essentially if there is corruption, it doesn't change much. Trump didn't win because the people wanted him to win. He won because A) the system is extremely restrictive and only one of two people will ever win in, and B) because the system allows people to do well in a few states and therefore win the election. There are only 12 important states. They make up 20% of the US population, and they decide the outcome of the election. That's ridiculous. Who cares if there's corruption, it doesn't stop the system being ridiculous.
Also, I didn't say old is outdated. The system happens to be old AND outdated though.
To be honest, I'm not up on what happened in New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with either of the two corrupt and power hungry political parties that are destroying the US.
I have a problem with THE SYSTEM. The system leads to so many problems, and leads to the President not really representing the people.
I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"
All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.
Time for New Hampshire to do so.
False equivalency.
The problem could also be we're saying that if a state runs a fraudulent election, that's bad. Just sayin'
Your thoughts on the electoral college are irrelevant to the real problem; voter fraud stole elections in New Hampshire.
Why is it bad? This is the system as it was set up. Ever seen a map for the 1800 Presidential election?
What do you notice?
That voting wasn't extensive.
A state CAN choose the EC voters however it likes.
Some states say a candidate wins all the EC votes. Others say a candidate wins a proportion.
How a state chooses it's EC votes is down to the state itself. If the state wants to have people coming in and registering on the day and not having time to check. It can do that. If it wants some people to vote twice, it can do that.
If you have an outdated system, and you want to keep said outdated system, don't complain it's corrupt.
Again, a false equivalency.
Outdated need not mean corrupt.
Further, old need not mean outdated.
However a state chooses to run its election, it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the existence of fraudulent votes, particularly when it's bad enough to throw that election.
One wonders if you'd be as unconcerned if it were Republican candidates benefiting?
No, I didn't say outdated had to mean corrupt.
What I did say was don't complain that the system is corrupt, complain that the system is so outdated it's not fit for service.
Essentially if there is corruption, it doesn't change much. Trump didn't win because the people wanted him to win. He won because A) the system is extremely restrictive and only one of two people will ever win in, and B) because the system allows people to do well in a few states and therefore win the election. There are only 12 important states. They make up 20% of the US population, and they decide the outcome of the election. That's ridiculous. Who cares if there's corruption, it doesn't stop the system being ridiculous.
Also, I didn't say old is outdated. The system happens to be old AND outdated though.
To be honest, I'm not up on what happened in New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with either of the two corrupt and power hungry political parties that are destroying the US.
I have a problem with THE SYSTEM. The system leads to so many problems, and leads to the President not really representing the people.
I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"
All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.
Time for New Hampshire to do so.
Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.
I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.
How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?
Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?
There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.
Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.
Why is it bad? This is the system as it was set up. Ever seen a map for the 1800 Presidential election?
What do you notice?
That voting wasn't extensive.
A state CAN choose the EC voters however it likes.
Some states say a candidate wins all the EC votes. Others say a candidate wins a proportion.
How a state chooses it's EC votes is down to the state itself. If the state wants to have people coming in and registering on the day and not having time to check. It can do that. If it wants some people to vote twice, it can do that.
If you have an outdated system, and you want to keep said outdated system, don't complain it's corrupt.
Again, a false equivalency.
Outdated need not mean corrupt.
Further, old need not mean outdated.
However a state chooses to run its election, it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the existence of fraudulent votes, particularly when it's bad enough to throw that election.
One wonders if you'd be as unconcerned if it were Republican candidates benefiting?
No, I didn't say outdated had to mean corrupt.
What I did say was don't complain that the system is corrupt, complain that the system is so outdated it's not fit for service.
Essentially if there is corruption, it doesn't change much. Trump didn't win because the people wanted him to win. He won because A) the system is extremely restrictive and only one of two people will ever win in, and B) because the system allows people to do well in a few states and therefore win the election. There are only 12 important states. They make up 20% of the US population, and they decide the outcome of the election. That's ridiculous. Who cares if there's corruption, it doesn't stop the system being ridiculous.
Also, I didn't say old is outdated. The system happens to be old AND outdated though.
To be honest, I'm not up on what happened in New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with either of the two corrupt and power hungry political parties that are destroying the US.
I have a problem with THE SYSTEM. The system leads to so many problems, and leads to the President not really representing the people.
I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"
All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.
Time for New Hampshire to do so.
Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.
I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.
How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?
Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?
There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.
Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.
Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.
Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.
New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Again, good luck.
Again, a false equivalency.
Outdated need not mean corrupt.
Further, old need not mean outdated.
However a state chooses to run its election, it's perfectly reasonable to criticize the existence of fraudulent votes, particularly when it's bad enough to throw that election.
One wonders if you'd be as unconcerned if it were Republican candidates benefiting?
No, I didn't say outdated had to mean corrupt.
What I did say was don't complain that the system is corrupt, complain that the system is so outdated it's not fit for service.
Essentially if there is corruption, it doesn't change much. Trump didn't win because the people wanted him to win. He won because A) the system is extremely restrictive and only one of two people will ever win in, and B) because the system allows people to do well in a few states and therefore win the election. There are only 12 important states. They make up 20% of the US population, and they decide the outcome of the election. That's ridiculous. Who cares if there's corruption, it doesn't stop the system being ridiculous.
Also, I didn't say old is outdated. The system happens to be old AND outdated though.
To be honest, I'm not up on what happened in New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with either of the two corrupt and power hungry political parties that are destroying the US.
I have a problem with THE SYSTEM. The system leads to so many problems, and leads to the President not really representing the people.
I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"
All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.
Time for New Hampshire to do so.
Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.
I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.
How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?
Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?
There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.
Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.
Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.
Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.
New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Again, good luck.
A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....
The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.
Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?
No, I didn't say outdated had to mean corrupt.
What I did say was don't complain that the system is corrupt, complain that the system is so outdated it's not fit for service.
Essentially if there is corruption, it doesn't change much. Trump didn't win because the people wanted him to win. He won because A) the system is extremely restrictive and only one of two people will ever win in, and B) because the system allows people to do well in a few states and therefore win the election. There are only 12 important states. They make up 20% of the US population, and they decide the outcome of the election. That's ridiculous. Who cares if there's corruption, it doesn't stop the system being ridiculous.
Also, I didn't say old is outdated. The system happens to be old AND outdated though.
To be honest, I'm not up on what happened in New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with either of the two corrupt and power hungry political parties that are destroying the US.
I have a problem with THE SYSTEM. The system leads to so many problems, and leads to the President not really representing the people.
I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"
All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.
Time for New Hampshire to do so.
Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.
I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.
How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?
Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?
There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.
Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.
Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.
Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.
New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Again, good luck.
A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....
The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.
Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?
The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.
Good luck with that amendment.
Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.
It does not surprise me, progressives are the ultimate control freaks.Yep....voters who vote and then vanish into thin air.......
New Data: Illegal Voters May Have Decided New Hampshire in 2016
Newly available data is casting doubt on the integrity of the presidential election in New Hampshire in 2016, which Hillary Clinton won by just over 2,700 votes.
Over 6,000 voters in New Hampshire had used same-day voter registration procedures to register and vote simultaneously for president. The current New Hampshire Speaker of the House, Shawn Jasper, sought and obtained data about what happened to these 6,000 "new" New Hampshire voters who showed up on Election Day.
It seems the overwhelming majority of them can no longer be found in New Hampshire.
Of those 6,000, only 1,014 have ever obtained New Hampshire driver's licenses. Of the 5,526 voters who never obtained a New Hampshire driver's license, a mere three percent have registered a vehicle in New Hampshire.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation received information that 70 percent of the same-day registrants used out-of-state photo ID to vote in the 2016
No, I didn't say outdated had to mean corrupt.
What I did say was don't complain that the system is corrupt, complain that the system is so outdated it's not fit for service.
Essentially if there is corruption, it doesn't change much. Trump didn't win because the people wanted him to win. He won because A) the system is extremely restrictive and only one of two people will ever win in, and B) because the system allows people to do well in a few states and therefore win the election. There are only 12 important states. They make up 20% of the US population, and they decide the outcome of the election. That's ridiculous. Who cares if there's corruption, it doesn't stop the system being ridiculous.
Also, I didn't say old is outdated. The system happens to be old AND outdated though.
To be honest, I'm not up on what happened in New Hampshire. It has nothing to do with either of the two corrupt and power hungry political parties that are destroying the US.
I have a problem with THE SYSTEM. The system leads to so many problems, and leads to the President not really representing the people.
I disagree its "so outdated, it's not fit for service"
All a state need do implement procedures to ensure fraudulent votes are not cast. It just takes the political will to do so.
Time for New Hampshire to do so.
Good for you. You are allowed to disagree.
I believe it's an outdated system because only 20% of the voters gets to decide on the President. The French Presidential system allows 100% of the voters to decide.
How can a system which effectively gives people the vote, but prevents then having a say be a good system?
Trump got less votes than Hillary. How can a person who gets less votes win the election?
There are only two viable candiates. The system makes it so. Mobility for 3rd parties is below zero. People don't have a choice.
Go to other countries and THE PEOPLE decide the elections. In the US it isn't the people. That's why it's outdated.
Okay, now you want to argue against the electoral college.
Fine, but I think it's a more than reasonable check against federal power. I like it. If you don't, seek a Constitutional amendment. Good luck.
New Hampshire still needs to clamp down on the fraudulent voting until such time as we embrace the idea of a pure democracy, which I see as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Again, good luck.
A check against Federal Power huh? You see federal power getting weaker do you? Right.....
The point isn't to have a system that's a check on federal power. The point is to have a system that gets a govt that THE PEOPLE choose.
Why does New Hampshire need to clamp down on fraudulent voting. They can do what they like. You want checks on federal power, then demand that New Hampshire does what the Federal Power wants it to do. Huh?
The people choosing is a democracy. We're a Constitutional Republic.
Good luck with that amendment.
Your admiration of fraudulent voting is noted.
