Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Is voter fraud happening?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
    The younger generation is getting its news from the web. The major networks news programs will soon be a thing of the past.
    That is a positive then.

    IF current trends continue of course.

    ?


    • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      The younger generation is getting its news from the web. The major networks news programs will soon be a thing of the past
      I worry about the censoring going on now with the corporations who own sites like you tube and then there is google, who are censoring what they consider inflammatory videos. It seems corporations are not bound by the first amendment and they don't honor it. Not exactly pornagraphy they are censoring. You Tube has been cutting off the advertising income that many of these you tube channels get They just defunded Ron Paul and his Liberty Report. (I am a regular viewer of Dr. Paul)

      ?


      • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        I worry about the censoring going on now with the corporations who own sites like you tube and then there is google, who are censoring what they consider inflammatory videos. It seems corporations are not bound by the first amendment and they don't honor it. Not exactly pornagraphy they are censoring. You Tube has been cutting off the advertising income that many of these you tube channels get They just defunded Ron Paul and his Liberty Report. (I am a regular viewer of Dr. Paul)
        Someone will step up and challenge youtube's monopoly. Just a matter of time.

        ?


        • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

          It seems corporations are not bound by the first amendment and they don't honor it.
          No one but the U.S. government, state and local governments are bound by the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech simply means the government cannot arrest you or charge you with a crime for what you say or write. There are some exceptions, such as 'fighting words' or 'clear and present danger.' It does not mean that there can be no consequences for expressing your ideas in inappropriate ways or locations.

          Freedom of speech does not mean one can go into a place of business, either as a customer or employee and express their ideas without the consent of the owner. Standing on a public sidewalk is protected, though. But an employer can restrict what their employees can say on the job. When one accesses a website such as Youtube.com, they agree to the 'terms of service' which by their very nature limit what one can say or do there. 1st amendment does not apply. Just as the website we are currently on has limitations as to what people can write, links that can be posted, videos, etc., the owners of this website are not bound by the 1st amendment. They can silence any of us on this site if they so choose.

          I was recently banned from another website for violating the TOS. I did it one time, didn't even realize at the time that I did it. It was stupid. No warning, nothing. BAM! I'm out for good, I guess. OH well, live and learn.

          ?


          • Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post

            No one but the U.S. government, state and local governments are bound by the 1st amendment. Freedom of speech simply means the government cannot arrest you or charge you with a crime for what you say or write. There are some exceptions, such as 'fighting words' or 'clear and present danger.' It does not mean that there can be no consequences for expressing your ideas in inappropriate ways or locations.

            Freedom of speech does not mean one can go into a place of business, either as a customer or employee and express their ideas without the consent of the owner. Standing on a public sidewalk is protected, though. But an employer can restrict what their employees can say on the job. When one accesses a website such as Youtube.com, they agree to the 'terms of service' which by their very nature limit what one can say or do there. 1st amendment does not apply. Just as the website we are currently on has limitations as to what people can write, links that can be posted, videos, etc., the owners of this website are not bound by the 1st amendment. They can silence any of us on this site if they so choose.

            I was recently banned from another website for violating the TOS. I did it one time, didn't even realize at the time that I did it. It was stupid. No warning, nothing. BAM! I'm out for good, I guess. OH well, live and learn.
            Sure. But it gets a bit hairy when the state and corporations/big banking, merge into one entity which is what we have today. Such an entity can literally control a population because the part of gov't which is the private sector can control communication. We really don't have a separate private sector today, we have oligarchy, with an illusion of the separation. Threats to the oligarchy can be managed given communication is controlled by the business side of the oligarchy. And that looks to be the road being blazed to me.

            ?


            • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              I bring this up because I just learned that it took two years to recount the Florida votes, from back when Gore lost to Bush. It was given to Bush by the USSC, but two years later the recount revealed gore won florida, which would have put him into the oval office.

              And of course, there are many reports of some weird results going on with these machines that have been outlawed in europe but we still use them. Like, exit polling for arizona showing sanders winning, by 60/40 yet clinton wins by 60/40, and the same thing happening in Ma. where the final count did not match exit polling. An inversion happened again.
              Have we became such a fascist oligarchy that an oligarch will be elected on the democratic side, as we know the GOP side will of course give us one? Is there a reason for paranoia?

              Next question. Why in the world in the 21st century, can we not get an electoral process that is not so easily frauded? You can pick the right winner in a lotto, but you cannot trust our elections? Makes zero sense.
              No, the recount did not determine Gore won. First, it is important to understand that the Florida vote in 2000 was so close that it was within any rational margin of error for vote tabulation (this is why the findings of the recount you refer to contained the word "probably" in almost every finding).

              When the votes were first tallied, Bush won. When the votes were recounted in the mandatory machine recount, Bush won. These were the two single most objective tallies there ever were, each successive "recount" were working from decreasingly reliable ballots (many of the ballots are sufficiently physically altered with each handling that the "information" on them changes) and were conducted at times selectively, with increasingly subjective and inconsistent standards applied.

              That said, the "recount" you refer to found that under the rules set forth by the FLOTUS (that the U.S. Supreme Court shot down on a 7-2 vote), Bush would "probably" have won. It found that the recount Gore's team had asked for, Bush "probably" would have won. It did find that a recount of all "disputed" ballots (those for which the actual vote cast was the least clear and most prone to subjective determination rather than by objectively and consistently applied standards) Gore "probably" would have won by anywhere from 42-171 votes (the smallest margin of the three different sets of recount by scope and the one with the the outcome most open to subjective determination).

              Nobody can honestly say we know who actually had more votes cast for them in Florida because you will get different tallies everytime you count that many votes. What we CAN say with certainty is that by the most objective standards available (those least prone to human error or manipulation) Bush DID win, and that under the recounts asked for by Gore and ordered by FLOTUS, Bush would "probably" have won. So in the end, all the recount you are referring to "proved" was that in all likelyhood, the SCOTUS ruling (which again, was 7-2 that what the FLOTUS had ruled violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment) actually altered the outcome is doubtful.

              When you talk about comparing actual vote tallies to exit polls, what you have is people who do not understand what exist polls are and how they work. The raw data is rarely accurate, it is not inteneded on its own to predict the outcome. It is used in conjunction with actual returns (and demographic data on ACTUAL turnout) to help project a winner once a sufficient sampling of the ACTUAL vote is in to adjust the exit polling raw data for sampling error.

              For example, n 2004, the early raw exit polling data looked very good for Kerry. The problem was that the raw data in key states had demonstrably (once actual turnout demographic data was available) had substantially over-sampled younger women. Once the raw exit polling data was adjusted for the demographics of actual turnout, the exit polls were very closely aligned with the actual vote tabulation results.

              Now, I am in favor of 100 percent utilization of optical scan ballots, where the voter fills it out, scans it, and their ballot is marked upon scanning with the votes it tallied per that ballot. The voter then has the opportunity to review it, to ensure that the vote recorded matches what they marked, and then deposit the actual ballot into a secured box. If they do not believe that it was properly recorded based on the markings on the ballot, they can cancel and request a fresh ballot.

              This would provide assurance to voters that their ballot was properly tallied, and provide an audit trail of ballots that could not be easily altered. It would eliminate subjective review of the ballots trying to guess what the voter "meant" to do. It would be the responsibility of each individual voter to make sure that their ballot was read properly (and marked accordingly by the system) before finalizing their part by depositing the scan ballot into the secured repository.

              Also, this only works if we come up with additional measures to ensure accuracy and security for mail-in ballots (which also means radically scaling back this option unless people will genuinely not be in town on election day or at all during early voting).

              ?


              • Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
                The problem is it's such a stupid crime to commit that only a truly deluded few will bother.

                For the addition of one vote for a candidate someone has to risk prison with all the consequences that brings. My mum has been running a local polling station in my town (I help set it up) and she's experienced voter fraud once in well over 20 years and the other local election officials had never seen it.
                I'm not trying to claim this local experience is representative of anything in the US but I think it's such a tiny problem that all the attention given to what just isn't a problem just hides pretty transparant attempts at voter disenfranchisement.
                Ah, there are plenty of methods of voter fraud that yield more than a single misallocated vote. Take for example the fact that the single most reliable demographic for democrats (even more so than African Americans) is elderly nursing home patients with dementia voting by absentee ballot *grin*

                ?


                • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                  It's hard enough to get people to vote once let alone multiple times. But we have to have some reason for Trump's crushing defeat. This is as good as any I guess.
                  But it is quite easy (particularly in liberal precincts of blue states) to cast ballots on behalf of people who don't vote.

                  ?


                  • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                    No, the recount did not determine Gore won. First, it is important to understand that the Florida vote in 2000 was so close that it was within any rational margin of error for vote tabulation (this is why the findings of the recount you refer to contained the word "probably" in almost every finding).

                    When the votes were first tallied, Bush won. When the votes were recounted in the mandatory machine recount, Bush won. These were the two single most objective tallies there ever were, each successive "recount" were working from decreasingly reliable ballots (many of the ballots are sufficiently physically altered with each handling that the "information" on them changes) and were conducted at times selectively, with increasingly subjective and inconsistent standards applied.

                    That said, the "recount" you refer to found that under the rules set forth by the FLOTUS (that the U.S. Supreme Court shot down on a 7-2 vote), Bush would "probably" have won. It found that the recount Gore's team had asked for, Bush "probably" would have won. It did find that a recount of all "disputed" ballots (those for which the actual vote cast was the least clear and most prone to subjective determination rather than by objectively and consistently applied standards) Gore "probably" would have won by anywhere from 42-171 votes (the smallest margin of the three different sets of recount by scope and the one with the the outcome most open to subjective determination).

                    Nobody can honestly say we know who actually had more votes cast for them in Florida because you will get different tallies everytime you count that many votes. What we CAN say with certainty is that by the most objective standards available (those least prone to human error or manipulation) Bush DID win, and that under the recounts asked for by Gore and ordered by FLOTUS, Bush would "probably" have won. So in the end, all the recount you are referring to "proved" was that in all likelyhood, the SCOTUS ruling (which again, was 7-2 that what the FLOTUS had ruled violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment) actually altered the outcome is doubtful.

                    When you talk about comparing actual vote tallies to exit polls, what you have is people who do not understand what exist polls are and how they work. The raw data is rarely accurate, it is not inteneded on its own to predict the outcome. It is used in conjunction with actual returns (and demographic data on ACTUAL turnout) to help project a winner once a sufficient sampling of the ACTUAL vote is in to adjust the exit polling raw data for sampling error.

                    For example, n 2004, the early raw exit polling data looked very good for Kerry. The problem was that the raw data in key states had demonstrably (once actual turnout demographic data was available) had substantially over-sampled younger women. Once the raw exit polling data was adjusted for the demographics of actual turnout, the exit polls were very closely aligned with the actual vote tabulation results.

                    Now, I am in favor of 100 percent utilization of optical scan ballots, where the voter fills it out, scans it, and their ballot is marked upon scanning with the votes it tallied per that ballot. The voter then has the opportunity to review it, to ensure that the vote recorded matches what they marked, and then deposit the actual ballot into a secured box. If they do not believe that it was properly recorded based on the markings on the ballot, they can cancel and request a fresh ballot.

                    This would provide assurance to voters that their ballot was properly tallied, and provide an audit trail of ballots that could not be easily altered. It would eliminate subjective review of the ballots trying to guess what the voter "meant" to do. It would be the responsibility of each individual voter to make sure that their ballot was read properly (and marked accordingly by the system) before finalizing their part by depositing the scan ballot into the secured repository.

                    Also, this only works if we come up with additional measures to ensure accuracy and security for mail-in ballots (which also means radically scaling back this option unless people will genuinely not be in town on election day or at all during early voting).
                    You are correct and I was wrong. And I cannot find the source of the trash I posted about florida. And I looked, boy oh boy did I look. LOL But when I am wrong, I do not mind admitting it. I have been wrong before and will be again. Although I do like limiting those occassions. ha ha

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                      You are correct and I was wrong. And I cannot find the source of the trash I posted about florida. And I looked, boy oh boy did I look. LOL But when I am wrong, I do not mind admitting it. I have been wrong before and will be again. Although I do like limiting those occassions. ha ha
                      It was less that you were wrong, and more that you mis-recollected an actual fact, because many people did in fact report and comment no the results of that study in the very simplistic manner in terms of its findings that you recalled. In fact, the single most undercovered aspect of the Florida recount was the point I made with regard to the actual votes cast (by any objective counting measure) are within the margin of error for pretty much any method of counting. The question then becomes (not just for that race, but any race) what is the "fairest" way to count in such circumstances. I maintain, as I did then, that the "fairest" way was to use the least subjective means, the machine recounts.

                      Also, a bit of history, part of the problem in the whole debacle was the FLOTUS misapplication of the "intent of the voter" standard. The section of the state's election law that required the use of that standard dealt specifically with ballots that were 'spoiled' in a manner that made it impossible to feed them through the vote tabulation equipment. Instead, they treated it like a standard that applied to ALL ballots in a manual recount which where the subjective assessment of the manual recounters was different from the objective assessment of how a machine would have counted it. This was what opened it up to utter chaos (in part). That "intent of the voter" standard was never intended to be an open ended requirement to second guess the objective standards of the "clear intent" and try divine an intent absent a clear one. I often disagree with Justice O'Connor, but in referring to counting standards, she asked a very pertinent question, why isn't the clear intent of the voter determined based on ballot's marked in a manner they are instructed to. This is what opened us up to the insanity of hanging and dimpled chads. Voting is one of the single most serious acts we undertake as citizens, it is not too much to ask that people follow ridiculously simple instructions to ensure that the ballots show their "clear intent".

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                        I worry about the censoring going on now with the corporations who own sites like you tube and then there is google, who are censoring what they consider inflammatory videos. It seems corporations are not bound by the first amendment and they don't honor it. Not exactly pornagraphy they are censoring. You Tube has been cutting off the advertising income that many of these you tube channels get They just defunded Ron Paul and his Liberty Report. (I am a regular viewer of Dr. Paul)
                        Ironic that you mention pornography in that some members of the Supreme Court are perfectly happy (nay, eager) to permit censorship of political speech by the government under the First Amendment, but not pornography (turning the whole purpose of the freedom of speech and press ass over tea kettle).

                        ?


                        • On the topic of Voter Fraud, we should be aware of how easy it is to accomplish if that is something on someones mind to do:

                          This article in Wired explains it.

                          This year, I bought two more machines to see if security had improved. To my dismay, I discovered that the newer model machinesthose that were used in the 2016 electionare running Windows CE and have USB ports, along with other components, that make them even easier to exploit than the older ones. Our voting machines, billed as next generation, and still in use today, are worse than they were beforedispersed, disorganized, and susceptible to manipulation.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                            On the topic of Voter Fraud, we should be aware of how easy it is to accomplish if that is something on someones mind to do:

                            This article in Wired explains it.
                            Democrats explain to us how secure our system is though ... but truth is, we have to take it on faith.

                            ?


                            • I am reliably informed these machines are stand-alone machines: Someone would have to visit each one and upload a "virus" individually in order to impact widespread results. Which, at this point, only explains how thousands of returns are routinely discovered "in a warehouse."

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X