BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 10:44 PM

McGrath, the electoral college will never be thrown out. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do that, and there would be TWO MAJOR obstacles to that:
1. 2/3 of the Senate would have to pass the amendment. That would mean 17 states could block the amendment if their Senators opposed it.
2. IIRC, 3/4 of the State legislatures would have to ratify the amendment if it passed the Senate (and House). That means a mere 13 states could block its passage.

The smaller population states -- AL, ID, MT, SD, ND, DE, RI, NH, ME, HI, NV, NM, WY, UT, VT, etc. -- would never let it pass the US Senate, much less their state legislatures.

The only thing that MIGHT be done is what Colorado voted on this year, which is for individual states to assign their own electors proportionally or by Congressional District, the way Maine does.


CORRECTION: Earlier I said, "...FAVA -- the fair voting act -- was passed in order to avoid people's votes being lost or thrown out by outdated machines (e.g., punch card machines that didn't always punch all the way through). Its intent was to allow quick, but, more importantly,fully accurate vote counts. Problem is, it was a badly designed bill, and Congress failed to FUND it."
Actually, that's "HAVA" -- the Help America Vote Act. The "Voting Rights Act" was passed as civil rights legislation decades ago and aimed at making sure minorities voting rights were not abridged.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 11:09 PM

Voting machines without paper trails were banned in California earlier this year - way before the election.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 10:41 AM

From the post - "The memos consisted of a series of e-mail messages between technical support personnel and sales representatives at Diebold discussing problems with their machines. The messages seemed to advocate Diebold representatives falsify security demonstrations for elections officials, as well as outlining security flaws in machines which had already been implemented in election precincts around the country. As of 2003, 37 states had contracts to use Diebold machines. "

Bev and Jerry - California rocks. This should have been a message to the other states. If Edwards is such a hot shot, lawyer - why did they let this election go through knowing that they would lose? I don't get it?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 08:11 AM

The spin begins, that's right, and of course this thread is a part of it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 02:21 AM

Quote (Bev & Jerry) -"Bev and Jerry - Voting machines without paper trails were banned in California earlier this year - way before the election."

B&J, the news reports I heard right before the election said that some counties/precincts in CA were still using paper-trail-less electronic machines, but voters had the OPTION of demanding a paper ballot if they didn't want to trust these machines.

One voter in such a precinct reported seeing a woman of about 65-ish ask for a paper ballot, saying that she had been told the machines might not be reliable. Then she noticed two different stacks of stickers. One was bright, shiny, and big, saying, "I voted - electronically!" The other was much smaller, dull, and nondescript, reading simply, "I voted." The woman asked if she could have one of the snazzy ones and was told, "No. Not if you choose a paper ballot. Only if you vote by machine." The observer said the woman then gave in and agreed to use the machine so she could have the prettier sticker.


dianavan, I've wondered the same thing, too. Not just about Edwards and Kerry, but about pretty much the whole Democratic party (except for Russ Holt and a few others). Airamericaradio.com (and it's broadcasts on AM) and many internet supporters, investigative reporters and authors, such as Greg Palast and Bev Harris, have been screaming about the unreliable, corruptible machine votes for YEARS, but the Dems just let the media get by without giving it the attention it deserves.   It's kind of like the way Gore and the Dems dropped the ball in 2000 by not demanding a hand recount of the entire state of Florida in the first few days after the election. Had they done so, Gore would be President. And had the Dems made the voting PROCESS the issue it should have been, they'd have been in position to demand an investigation of the 2004 election the minute so many suspect phenomena appeared.