Sharp as a Marble - Remember what I said about the Margin of Cheat?

Remember what I said about the Margin of Cheat?

I gave it 5%.

I have no faith that the people ‘in charge’ were elected. I’m not even sure Obama is legitimately our President. We’re done as a country when the electoral system is this broke. We laugh at the sham elections in foreign countries when the Dictator gets 99% of the vote, but when in Philly, Obama gets 100% of the votes with nary a single vote cast for Romney, we accept that as reality. When a politician loses an election and magically a box of ballots was ‘forgotten’ in a trunk somewhere that just happens to have thousands of votes for that politician and we just accept it and consider him the winner, that’s normal.

These people don’t care about your vote. They do not believe in democracy any more than they believe in a constitutionally limited republic. They want to be your master, you are theirs to command and control. They’ll let you go through the motions to assuage your fears of a tyranny but it’s a tyranny nonetheless – we just get a new set of tyrants every few years to continue the charade of a Republic.

Comments

Boyd says:

on 11/19/2012 at 9:19 AM

I think I'll wait for more information before forming an opinion on this matter. The only way we know there were 900 ballots cast in a 7-voter precinct is because...Allen West said so, at least based on the link you provided.

Sorry, West seems as likely to me to be a liar as Murphy. And outrageous claims coming from West aren't unknown.

Borepatch says:

on 11/19/2012 at 9:23 AM

Stalin: It doesn't matter who casts the ballot. It matters who counts the ballot.

Rignerd says:

on 11/19/2012 at 9:30 AM

Unremarkably, over 90 precincts in Illinois and Pennsylvania had 0 votes for Romney.

King county Texas only had 5 votes (3.4% of the population) for Obama making it the most Anti Obama precinct in the nation according to CNN.

Seems fair to me.

Bruce Smith says:

on 11/19/2012 at 9:37 AM

http://www.amazon.com/Most-Dangerous-Superstition-Larken-Rose/dp/145075063X

I think it is time for this book...

Robb Allen says:

on 11/19/2012 at 10:04 AM

Boyd, it's more than just Allen's race.

Now, as long as there have been elections, there has been cheating. Hell, maybe half our elections have been shams and we're just now able to discern it.

This is always a problem with anonymous voting. I realize anonymity allows people to vote how they *want* to vote vs. how they're expected to. However, I'm not sure that trade off is worth it.

John Hardin says:

on 11/19/2012 at 10:30 AM

The other reason for anonymous ballots is that it reduces or prevents vote buying. You're less likely be able to sell your vote if you can't prove to the buyer you actually voted the way they wanted you to.

Leer Rosh says:

on 11/19/2012 at 11:00 AM

Well I actually worked at a voting district, and we had some 1800 votes counted, but only 1550 people actually checked in to vote.

So I saw voter fraud in my own district...and it was in VA.

Robb Allen says:

on 11/19/2012 at 11:09 AM

John H., I'm not sure that actually works in today's times. I mean, they're buying votes now anyway (Obamaphones, bussing homeless people in and giving them cigarettes, etc) and while the buyer cannot guarantee 100% compliance, it's still worth it.

Since buying a vote is illegal, you'd have no recourse if someone took your money and voted a different way.

Personally, I believe that having franchise means you should be public about your actions. If you're too afraid to vote your conscious because you'll be found out, maybe voting isn't something you should be doing.

aczarnowski says:

on 11/19/2012 at 12:07 PM

Non-anonymous voting feels like a pretty slippery slope to me. Which side of the Google+ nymwars did you come down on Robb?

Robb Allen says:

on 11/19/2012 at 12:36 PM

It's far from a fully thought out, well considered idea. However, I'm still not convinced that granting franchise to everyone is a good idea. Unfortunately, I cannot consider any other method that doesn't allow tyranny to happen just as easily, so mostly I just fume about it.

aczarnowski says:

on 11/19/2012 at 2:11 PM

Anybody who has read Heinlein has probably toyed with voting systems in their head.

For me, everybody getting the vote is less of an issue than everybody getting *their* vote. The dead and those that stayed home with votes in the basket are what get me. So institute the purple finger and be done with that.

A notch up the complexity scale voter ID kicks in to ensure you're getting your purple finger in the correct locality.

A huge notch above that is games over who gets the franchise. Those with positive net tax seem like a good idea to me. Two bad that game would require two refs for every player.

Cormac says:

on 11/19/2012 at 2:31 PM

I just hope we pull through our upcoming dystopia quickly enough that I'm able to see the follow-up "Starship Troopers" style society rise up from the ashes...

Will says:

on 11/19/2012 at 3:55 PM

I've read that voting in the US took a measurable turn toward socialism when women got the vote. Haven't seen the figures on it. Makes sense, though. They want security, and think the gov't can supply it, or guarantee it. Frustrating to think that women are the enemy, to some extent. (this ought to bring on some flaming!)

Timmeehh says:

on 11/19/2012 at 7:27 PM

Only net tax contributors should get to vote. Exceptions made for active military and essential govt employees.

A written test on basic civics must be passed in order to register.

Skip or used to be 'til your blog says:

on 11/19/2012 at 11:37 PM

As an old geezer with a beautiful but invalided wife, we are just waiting for the bullhorn in the street.
Shoot the stack and the last two for us.
We didn't spend our lives building business's to watch this final act of America.
The kids are f@cked, the 'cliff' is painted over with whitewash.
Too old to run. Too old to fight.
Bring it the fuck on!

Will says:

on 11/20/2012 at 3:37 PM

Timmeehh:

NO on any voting by ANY govt employee, local or fed, except military.

Robb Allen says:

on 11/20/2012 at 4:06 PM

Military too. Sorry, but even as a former Marine, gov't job is a gov't job.

If it's understood that when you sign up for a gov't job you lose franchise, then it needs to be across the board, not just the gov't agencies we're not fond of.

Comments have been closed on this topic.