• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

2018 mid-term election

I think, and no it's impossible to be sure about this, we maybe could sell to the American people that Federal Elections should be standardized by the Federal Government, but we aren't going to see in our lifetime the Federal Government being able to do much more than issue vague "outlines" for state and local elections.

Yeah, I know . . . <sigh> and as far as election reforms go, I'd probably consider that to be a lower priority than dropping the Electoral College.

And then getting most of the stuff on the ballot off the ballot.

You know, that might actually increase voter turnout.

A class action lawsuit by people who had to wait in line for hours? The possibility of receiving money for having to do so? It may just draw more people in.

Actually, I was thinking more like ACLU lawsuits to, for example, compel a county to open up more polling places. But your version is more fun.
 
I dunno, I could live with the electoral college, if it wasn't winner-takes-all. That would bring it in line with popular vote, and would solve most of the problems with it. Make the EC votes proportional to the in-state voting results, instead of all for the winner.

Of course, again, getting all the states to agree to that is likely insurmountable.
 
Yeah, I know . . . <sigh> and as far as election reforms go, I'd probably consider that to be a lower priority than dropping the Electoral College.

Kill the Electoral College and the ridiculous mixed primary and caucus system spread out over months, and replace it with a nationwide ranked-choice primary -- no conventions necessary
 
But those are selective pictures. I think in general it is a quick experience. But with probably thousands of polling places there are always some problems and those are the pictures you see.
Such as long lines in NYC this year.

Or having just one polling station for a whole town?
 
I could live with the Electoral College if it was the version the Constitution had set out, not the one States manipulated to maximize their power.
 
Hey, local election shenanigans!

The outcome of two election races in McHenry County changed Thursday after Clerk Mary McClellan discovered the county's election website had not updated results with early voting numbers.

Updated results now revealed 14th Congressional candidate Lauren Underwood carried McHenry County over incumbent U.S. Rep. Randy Hultgren – and McHenry County Board District 5 candidate Carlos Acosta defeated incumbent Michael Rein.

Unofficial results without early voting totals marked victories for Republicans Hultgren and Rein and showed that 21 percent of the 116,000 McHenry County residents who cast votes in Tuesday’s midterm election did not pick a candidate for governor or other statewide offices on the ballot.

Asked how it could be possible that 1 in 5 voters decided not to vote in top-of-the-ticket races, McHenry County Clerk Mary McClellan said there were issues with the county's election reporting software that led to missing vote totals.

"We are looking at election reporting software," McClellan told the Northwest Herald. "It is not showing all the numbers for some reason."

State Rep. David McSweeney contacted the Illinois State Board of Election's general counsel Thursday to ask for an investigation of how the McHenry County Clerk's Office tallied votes. The board reached out to McClellan and learned that early voting numbers were not included on the county's website.

"It looks strange," McSweeney said. "I’m not making any accusations, but it raises a red flag.”

...

In a phone interview Thursday morning, McClellan said the gap isn’t that unusual.

...

McClellan pegged the missing votes to “bullet voting” or "undervoting" – the practice of voting in one race on the ballot despite the ability to vote in more.

“People do it all the time,” the clerk said.

In 2016, the Illinois State Board of Elections looked into problems that plagued that year’s primary.

Linky.

McClellan is a Republican, coincidentally.
 
Last edited:
Nationwide it looks like Medicaid expansion via referendum and Governorship won, as well as minimum wage increases, all in Red States. But also abortion measures for if Roe is overturned.
Don't worry... we have it on good authority from Senator Collins that Supreme court Justice Drunky McRapeface is actually a super feminist and will be supportive of abortion rights for any cases that make it to the supreme court.
 
Its certainly possible that apathy has something to do with it. (Especially for voters in solid-republican or solid-democrat states, who may decide to say home if they think the results won't change the end result.)

The solution to that: Make the president elected by popular vote. That way, a voter in Texas or California won't feel their votes are irrelevant because "My state is solid republican/democrat". The Republicans would never go for that though, because they would have lost 2 of their 3 presidential victories.

I agree, the problem is you need to amend the constitution to do that, and this not easy to do. Two thirds of both houses of congress, and then it needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the States.
There is another way of fixing the problem>The states have the power to decide how the electorial votes are distributed, so have the electorial votes divided up by what percentage of the popular votes ; if you get X% of the popular vote, you get a propotiional amont of the electorial votes. I would prefer going to a direct popular vote, but that ain;t gonna happen anytime soon. You would never get it approved by the smaller population states which have more power under the electorial system.
 
I dunno, I could live with the electoral college, if it wasn't winner-takes-all. That would bring it in line with popular vote, and would solve most of the problems with it. Make the EC votes proportional to the in-state voting results, instead of all for the winner.

Of course, again, getting all the states to agree to that is likely insurmountable.

Not as insourmuntable as amending the constitution, though.
Winner take all is NOT in the Constitution. That is just how,traditionally, it has been done. States have the power to determine how their electorial votes are distributed, and at least one state does what you suggest..make it proportional.
You don't need to get all the states to agree, each state can do what it wants with how it's E.C. votes are distributed.
 
Does Avenatti pay you to perpetuate his lies?
I'd do it for free as long as his lies stuck. No question of honor applies to Trump or his supporters. If it hurts Trump and it's legal, the ends justify the means. Any slander, any lie, any dirty trick, any act of base immorality is fine as long as it works.
 
I dunno, I could live with the electoral college, if it wasn't winner-takes-all. That would bring it in line with popular vote, and would solve most of the problems with it. Make the EC votes proportional to the in-state voting results, instead of all for the winner.

Of course, again, getting all the states to agree to that is likely insurmountable.

Not as insourmuntable as amending the constitution, though.
Winner take all is NOT in the Constitution. That is just how,traditionally, it has been done. States have the power to determine how their electorial votes are distributed, and at least one state does what you suggest..make it proportional.
You don't need to get all the states to agree, each state can do what it wants with how it's E.C. votes are distributed.

I've long advocated something like they do in Nebraska and Vermont(??) -- two votes at large and one per congressional district. But we'd need to fix gerrymandering first.
 
My biggest fear is that people who voted this Midterm for first time, (or for the first time in a long time) will be re-affirmed in their belief that voting doesn't change anything.

Hopefully they're paying attention to how different races are evolving as every vote is counted. Waiting for official results takes time and it's proving that voting matters.
 
I've long advocated something like they do in Nebraska and Vermont(??) -- two votes at large and one per congressional district. But we'd need to fix gerrymandering first.


That would be one of the advantages of allocating each state's Electoral votes in proportion to the state's popular vote, it would wipe out the gerrymander advantage.
 
That would be one of the advantages of allocating each state's Electoral votes in proportion to the state's popular vote, it would wipe out the gerrymander advantage.

I see this approach as less likely than the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, where a group of states consisting of a majority of the electoral votes agree to give their votes to whoever win the national popular vote (which is still unlikely). The states that are competitive won't want to give up all the attention they get as big prize swing states. The states that aren't competitive won't want to give up their solid blocks to their favored parties.

Besides that, each state allocating their votes would still would be unequal, and you could still have minority elected Presidents.
 

Back
Top Bottom