US Election: 2016

[FJAG]

>So having a nation wide conspiracy to steal an election by manipulating the vote is an almost impossible prospect.

Which is why it's meaningless to raise it as either a boogeyman, or to dismiss fears of vote fraud ("successful national vote fraud is impossible; therefore, all successful vote fraud is impossible").  But wherever an election might be decided by a few hundred votes (eg. FL, 2000), productive vote fraud - before or after polls close - is viable.  And note that it's the viability that matters most - not whether anyone actually capitalizes on it.

And even if you dismiss the viability of productive/successful vote fraud, there is still the incontrovertible taint of any fraud, regardless of its effect.

When someone raises concerns about electoral integrity, neither "we've studied it, and found nothing significant" nor "it doesn't exist, we assure you" is an acceptable response.  The only acceptable response is "we'll button that down right now".

All that is required is one day on which polls are open for a reasonable length of time - say, 12 hours - with an opportunity for advance/absentee voting only for people who can prove they will be unable to vote in person at their designated polling station on voting day.  Voting rolls should be regularly and frequently cleansed.  Proof of identity should be required (and the allowable identity should not be difficult to obtain - if necessary, picture voter ID registration cards should be provided at public expense).

Keeping track of people is akin to herding cats. There will always be individuals who aren't up to date on the voters' lists but here in Canada we have reasonable ways of dealing with that so that a person who wants to vote can do so.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

These are in some cases onerous on certain people but not incapable of being done. (when a letter from a soup kitchen or shelter can be used then the system is certainly catering to fairly extreme circumstances).

The trouble down under, from what I understand, is that identification rules, advance voting rules and even the number of polling stations, and poll opening timings in "unfriendly" territories are curtailed or restricted in such a way as to discourage "unfriendly" voters from even bothering to show up to vote. That's a systemic fault which could easily be fixed IF there was a will to do so.

Long story short; the US needs an Elections Canada type system. Regrettably they most likely won't and therefore will continue to be subject to valid claims that the system is difficult for certain classes of voters to use and hysterical claims that the entire system is rigged through massive fraud.

:cheers:

 

[jollyjacktar]

As neither of the two candidates are really what is needed in the next POTUS, perhaps some twist of fate will remove them from office to make way for a better person to step into the void left behind.  With any luck any damage they may cause will be short lived and little felt by everyone else.

 

[cupper]

To avoid fraud you have to prove who you are.This gets in the way of democrat efforts to gin up voter fraud.These court battles are designed to undermine voter registration and identification.I walk into my polling place,show my drivers license and the poll worker finds my name on the roll and then I get to cast my vote.

I don't disagree with respect to voter ID requirements, as long as they make it easily obtainable. But there have been situations where some of the state issued forms of approved voter ID's were only available from the DMV and the state shut down mainly rural offices or cut back on hours, which made it more difficult. The courts have ruled that states can require ID to vote, but the state cannot put an undue burden on the voter's ability to obtain an acceptable form of ID.

But in the cases I cited, the voter ID requirements were not at issue, but limiting the ability to obtaining one was, as in the NC case. But additionally, there were other aspects not related to ID rules that were found to be an infringement on the right to vote, and in the NC case, proof that the steps taken were deliberately aimed against minorities.

 

[cupper]

Voter fraud is not a significant issue undermining the integrity of the electoral system. However control of the electoral system at the state level by the party that controls the state legislative body has done more to undermind the integrity of the system. And this goes back years, but has come to the forefront over the last decade.

As FJAG states in this post, they need to set up independant electoral boards to keep the partisan politics out of the system, perhaps in the same vein as our national and provincial elections bodys. This would go far to restoring the integrity and trust in the system. But I would steer away from the FEC's make up of equal numbers of members from each party, as this has proven to be easily forced to ineffectiveness by delaying appointments to empty seats by both sides as part of the recent obstructionism we have seen over the last 8 years.

 

[QV]

The yuge Trump win will be glorious. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

Independent electoral boards would not remain independent, for the reason I noted earlier.  The more powerful the presidency becomes with each passing term, the greater the need to control it.  There are too many strong incentives involved for anyone to pretend that non-partisan independence can be achieved.

Regardless, the boards should remain at the state level.  The last thing needed is for Congress or any federal agency to control the apportionment of districts.

 

[cupper]

Independent electoral boards would not remain independent, for the reason I noted earlier.  The more powerful the presidency becomes with each passing term, the greater the need to control it.  There are too many strong incentives involved for anyone to pretend that non-partisan independence can be achieved.

Regardless, the boards should remain at the state level.  The last thing needed is for Congress or any federal agency to control the apportionment of districts.

I agree with leaving it at the state level, only because the current system is based on the states electing senators and congressmen, and the electoral college is state derived.

But I don't see how the presidency is becoming more powerful with each term, particularly with what has been going on for the past 6 terms (3 Presidents). Congress can subvert the desires of the White House, with little recourse for work arounds (Dick Cheney being an execption during Bush's first term). Obama's two terms show how extreme this can be.

 

[cupper]

Donald Trumps line of BS about the election being rigged and calling on supporters to "watch" at the polling stations to make sure no one votes who shouldn't has finally landed the RNC in a big stinking pile.

The RNC has been under a concent decree since 1987 for a stunt pulled in New Jersey which targeted polls in largely minority populated districts.

http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rnc-v-dnc.pdf

The decree has been extended a couple times over the past 29 years, but is set to expire in 2017. However if the courts determine that the RNC has violated the terms of the decree, it can be extended for another 8 years.

http://time.com/4540955/donald-trump-ballot-watching/

Tonight the DNC filed papers requesting that the decree be extedned to 2025, based on Trumps call for poll watchers, law enforcement and others to go out to polling places, specifically in large minority districts.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-ask-judge-sanction-republicans-over-trump-001534936.html?ref=gs

 

[Jarnhamar]

Interesting piece in Maclean's today:


The not-so-crazy case against Hillary Clinton

The U.S. needs someone who can be trusted to bring the country together and then forward. Hillary Clinton is not that person.

That's a great explanation for the US presidency race.

In light of everything that has came to light about Hilary and continues to do so is it any stretch of the imagination that she would sanction voter fraud? No not at all.  Thing is even if she gets caught tomorrow making a youtube video on how to commit voter fraud she'll get barely any airtime or mention because the media will be flushing out the latest Trump disaster; like calling a girl fat 

 

[FJAG]

Independent electoral boards would not remain independent, for the reason I noted earlier.  The more powerful the presidency becomes with each passing term, the greater the need to control it.  There are too many strong incentives involved for anyone to pretend that non-partisan independence can be achieved.

Regardless, the boards should remain at the state level.  The last thing needed is for Congress or any federal agency to control the apportionment of districts.

While I suggested that what the US needs, is a Canada Elections-like agency, its undoubtedly impossible to achieve. This is primarily due to the differences in our respective constitutional allocation of powers. Canada has residual powers allocated at the federal level due to the "peace, order and good government" provisions of s 91 of our constitution. In the US, the Tenth Amendment states that any power not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states.

I'm sure that there are more specific provisions in the US that provide for the way they run elections (such as Article 2 of the Constitution vis a vis the presidency), but in general, the various states in the US have much more autonomy than our Canadian provinces both in law and in the points of view of their legislatures and their populations. When you start the with legal position that federal powers are limited to specific enumerated ones, it's easy to see why states jealously guard their powers from any interference by the federal government.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

>But I don't see how the presidency is becoming more powerful

The president executes in accordance with legislation (in theory).  Legislation accumulates (grows) with a close approximation to a monotonically increasing function.  Increasingly, Congress produces legislation which delegates authority to make regulations to the executive branch (agencies).  Increasingly, the president exercises authority which is clearly outside his constitution lane; however, the only corrective mechanism is for Congress to reassert its powers, and congressional Democrats are disinclined to limit the president to his constitutional authority.

When Congress exerts its authority to restrain the president or simply chooses not to comply with the president's wishes, nothing is being subverted.  The structure of the US government is designed to make major change impossible without broad concensus.  When the president doesn't get his way, it isn't because the other party in Congress is being obstructionist - it's because the president isn't offering up anything worth a deal (something equally transformational, if the president is seeking transformational change), and the system is working exactly as designed.

One of Obama's most irritating qualities is his arrogant and childish notion that he should get what he wants on his terms, without offering up anything to make a deal.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Tonight the DNC filed papers requesting that the decree be extedned to 2025, based on Trumps call for poll watchers, law enforcement and others to go out to polling places, specifically in large minority districts.

If Trump isn't calling for RNC involvement, it's hard to see why it should be extended.

 

[Remius]

Eric Grenier and a good analysis of why the National Polls may be off and that people should be looking at the state polls instead.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-tracking-polls-1.3818965

 

[RangerRay]

Usually I observe US elections as a bemused outsider.  The fact that Trump gets his news and views from Alex Jones and InfoWars actually scares the bejeezus out of me. 

I hope that Clinton wins, gets impeached, then the two parties can find suitable candidates for 2020. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

If your best-case scenario involves impeachment, best that Trump wins.  Bipartisan support for impeachment and conviction of Trump is possible; Democrats will not impeach one of their own.

 

[Remius]

Well things might just get more interesting...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html?adkey=bn

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/fbi-reopens-investigation-into-clinton-email-use.html

 

[a_majoor]

Memenic warfare taken to 11:

And while the Dems though they were so clever with their "October surprise", it looks like they never saw Anthony Weiner coming from left field. The fact it is an "Own Goal" makes it all the more delicious...

 

[The Bread Guy]

Memenic warfare taken to 11:

Yeah, it sucks when they don't keep it classy ...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Memenic warfare taken to 11:

And while the Dems though they were so clever with their "October surprise", it looks like they never saw Anthony Weiner coming from left field. The fact it is an "Own Goal" makes it all the more delicious...

Hmmm...from the same source as your pic.

But many on the Internet responded that this merely proves Clinton's desire to start World War III. Here are 21 of the most hilarious #DraftOurDaughters fake Hillary Clinton campaign ads featuring the female draft.

What the exactly fuck point are you trying to make?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I am not certain in what Universe it is ok for either Democrats or Republicans to use uniformed members of the US Military as part of their electioneering ads...