On 8/19/24 01:06, D wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, quadibloc wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:08:09 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/19/24 01:06, D wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, quadibloc wrote:
<snippo>
necessary public health measures against COVID-19, and he spewed lies
Trump's mode of converse is to lie and lie again. He knew just
how bad the crisis of Covid 19 would be and he lied to the American
Public.
He did much much worse -- he failed to use the opportunity to rally
the nation behind him and be swept into office in 2020 by a landslide.
Instead, he chose to alienate pretty much every group in the country
except his base and those traditional Republicans whose party loyalty
got the better of their judgement.
Trump just isn't that good a politician. The pandemic was a golden opportunity and he didn't know it.
On 8/20/24 08:51, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:08:09 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/19/24 01:06, D wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, quadibloc wrote:
<snippo>
necessary public health measures against COVID-19, and he spewed lies
Trump's mode of converse is to lie and lie again. He knew just
how bad the crisis of Covid 19 would be and he lied to the American
Public.
He did much much worse -- he failed to use the opportunity to rally
the nation behind him and be swept into office in 2020 by a landslide.
He won the Electoral College and Hillary Clinton won the
popular vote.
Instead, he chose to alienate pretty much every group in the country
except his base and those traditional Republicans whose party loyalty
got the better of their judgement.
Trump just isn't that good a politician. The pandemic was a golden
opportunity and he didn't know it.
He was only a successful businessman on a TV show.
Apparently the only law he fully understood was the Tax law and
the way he could use Bankruptcy to escape from paying his debts.
On 8/20/24 08:51, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:08:09 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/19/24 01:06, D wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, quadibloc wrote:
<snippo>
necessary public health measures against COVID-19, and he spewed lies
Trump's mode of converse is to lie and lie again. He knew just
how bad the crisis of Covid 19 would be and he lied to the American
Public.
He did much much worse -- he failed to use the opportunity to rally
the nation behind him and be swept into office in 2020 by a landslide.
He won the Electoral College and Hillary Clinton won the
popular vote.
--Instead, he chose to alienate pretty much every group in the country
except his base and those traditional Republicans whose party loyalty
got the better of their judgement.
Trump just isn't that good a politician. The pandemic was a golden
opportunity and he didn't know it.
He was only a successful businessman on a TV show.
Apparently the only law he fully understood was the Tax law and
the way he could use Bankruptcy to escape from paying his debts.
On 20/08/24 09:08, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
On 8/19/24 01:06, D wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, quadibloc wrote:
My nickname for quadibloc is FourBricks (in an Otherwise Empty Skull).
He is the reigning newsgroup loony with absolute faith in USA propaganda
and a self proclaimed expert on US politics from his padded cell in
Canada. All the problems in the world are caused by angry young men,
(not completely white), and will be solved with obedient Vat grown girls
but that is his story to tell.
"D" which may stand for Dishonest or Dumb and definitely Definitely
Right Wing is agreeing with him. Ha, ha, ha.
They both live in my kill file.
You, are needlessly wearing out your typing fingers.
Cryptoengineer wrote:snip
On 8/20/2024 4:30 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
He was only a successful businessman on a TV show. Apparently the
only law he fully understood was the Tax law and the way he could
use Bankruptcy to escape from paying his debts.
We're talking about a man who went bankrupt *running a casino*.
Worse, he was warned.
An analyst for a bank that was thinking of lending money to build
this casino concluded that it would not attract enough money to pay
its debt load.
When Trump heard of this, he pressured the bank to fire the analyst.
He was fired, the bank made the loan, and lost money.
Banks can be quite stupid sometimes, snip
On 22/08/24 09:33, William Hyde wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:snip
On 8/20/2024 4:30 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
He was only a successful businessman on a TV show. Apparently the
only law he fully understood was the Tax law and the way he could
use Bankruptcy to escape from paying his debts.
We're talking about a man who went bankrupt *running a casino*.
I don't know, but I didn't think he had been bankrupt personally but
that companies of his have. I think that he will have profited from
ownership and bankruptcy of these companies making him a very successful >businessman.
Worse, he was warned.
An analyst for a bank that was thinking of lending money to build
this casino concluded that it would not attract enough money to pay
its debt load.
When Trump heard of this, he pressured the bank to fire the analyst.
He was fired, the bank made the loan, and lost money.
I think Trump would have made money personally or directed money to
repay favours/create obligations.
It all sounds like pot boiler fiction but he gets away with it. In one
court case, Trump's legal representatives claimed that the European bank >seeking repayment of millions were at fault for failing to take into
account Trump's reputation for loan defaulting before approving loans to
his companies.
Banks can be quite stupid sometimes, snip
Trump deals in such large sums that I would suspect corruption before >stupidity of bank employees or directors.
Having just reread "The Big Short" I am convinced that there is no limit
to human stupidity when greed is a factor.
On Thu, 22 Aug 2024 17:11:43 +1200, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 22/08/24 09:33, William Hyde wrote:
Cryptoengineer wrote:snip
On 8/20/2024 4:30 PM, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
He was only a successful businessman on a TV show. Apparently the
only law he fully understood was the Tax law and the way he could
use Bankruptcy to escape from paying his debts.
We're talking about a man who went bankrupt *running a casino*.
I don't know, but I didn't think he had been bankrupt personally but
that companies of his have. I think that he will have profited from >>ownership and bankruptcy of these companies making him a very successful >>businessman.
Worse, he was warned.
An analyst for a bank that was thinking of lending money to build
this casino concluded that it would not attract enough money to pay
its debt load.
When Trump heard of this, he pressured the bank to fire the analyst.
He was fired, the bank made the loan, and lost money.
I think Trump would have made money personally or directed money to
repay favours/create obligations.
It all sounds like pot boiler fiction but he gets away with it. In one >>court case, Trump's legal representatives claimed that the European bank >>seeking repayment of millions were at fault for failing to take into >>account Trump's reputation for loan defaulting before approving loans to >>his companies.
Banks can be quite stupid sometimes, snip
Trump deals in such large sums that I would suspect corruption before >>stupidity of bank employees or directors.
If he made a practice of losing money on casinos, I'm surprised the
Mob didn't take him out years ago.
Maybe that RICO case in Georgia (if it ever gets going) has some >justification for the "RICO".
On 8/20/24 08:51, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:08:09 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/19/24 01:06, D wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, quadibloc wrote:
<snippo>
necessary public health measures against COVID-19, and he spewed lies
Trump's mode of converse is to lie and lie again. He knew just
how bad the crisis of Covid 19 would be and he lied to the American
Public.
He did much much worse -- he failed to use the opportunity to rally
the nation behind him and be swept into office in 2020 by a landslide.
He won the Electoral College and Hillary Clinton won the
popular vote.
Instead, he chose to alienate pretty much every group in the country
except his base and those traditional Republicans whose party loyalty
got the better of their judgement.
Trump just isn't that good a politician. The pandemic was a golden
opportunity and he didn't know it.
He was only a successful businessman on a TV show.
Apparently the only law he fully understood was the Tax law and
the way he could use Bankruptcy to escape from paying his debts.
He won the Electoral College and Hillary Clinton won theWho landed on the moon first in your timeline?
popular vote.
Because in this one he won the 2016 election against Hilary Clinton
but lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 13:30:39 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/20/24 08:51, Paul S Person wrote:Who landed on the moon first in your timeline?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:08:09 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/19/24 01:06, D wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, quadibloc wrote:
<snippo>
Trump's mode of converse is to lie and lie again. He knew justnecessary public health measures against COVID-19, and he spewed lies >>>>
how bad the crisis of Covid 19 would be and he lied to the American
Public.
He did much much worse -- he failed to use the opportunity to rally
the nation behind him and be swept into office in 2020 by a landslide.
He won the Electoral College and Hillary Clinton won the
popular vote.
Because in this one he won the 2016 election against Hilary Clinton
but lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 13:30:39 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/20/24 08:51, Paul S Person wrote:Who landed on the moon first in your timeline?
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 14:08:09 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/19/24 01:06, D wrote:
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024, quadibloc wrote:
<snippo>
Trump's mode of converse is to lie and lie again. He knew justnecessary public health measures against COVID-19, and he spewed lies >>>>
how bad the crisis of Covid 19 would be and he lied to the American
Public.
He did much much worse -- he failed to use the opportunity to rally
the nation behind him and be swept into office in 2020 by a landslide.
He won the Electoral College and Hillary Clinton won the
popular vote.
Because in this one he won the 2016 election against Hilary Clinton
but lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
Instead, he chose to alienate pretty much every group in the country
except his base and those traditional Republicans whose party loyalty
got the better of their judgement.
Trump just isn't that good a politician. The pandemic was a golden
opportunity and he didn't know it.
He was only a successful businessman on a TV show.
He was fairly successful in NY real estate (a pretty well protected
business if you have enough capital) and he's had some success running country clubs and hotels.
Of course in both those cases there's strong stenches of fraud
He pretty much failed outside of those areas
On 23/08/24 08:37, William Hyde wrote:
snip
Having just reread "The Big Short" I am convinced that there is no limit
to human stupidity when greed is a factor.
I have not read that but am aware that the Global Financial Crisis of
2008 is a euphemism for FRAUD having read Matt Taibbi's version in
Rolling Stone.
On 8/22/24 23:48, Mad Hamish wrote:
[stuff deleted]
He won the Electoral College and Hillary Clinton won theWho landed on the moon first in your timeline?
popular vote.
Because in this one he won the 2016 election against Hilary Clinton
but lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
The first statement was completely true. In 2016 Hillary won the popular >vote, but scum bucket won the Electoral College. In 2020 Biden won the >popular vote by an even larger margin than Hillary and the Electoral >College.
At this point, the Electoral College is the only vote that counts in the >race for President/Vice President.
And Jules Verne landed on the moon first. Everyone knows that.
[more stuff deleted for brevity]--
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 01:08:02 -0700, BCFD 36 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/22/24 23:48, Mad Hamish wrote:
[stuff deleted]
He won the Electoral College and Hillary Clinton won theWho landed on the moon first in your timeline?
popular vote.
Because in this one he won the 2016 election against Hilary Clinton
but lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
The first statement was completely true. In 2016 Hillary won the popular
vote, but scum bucket won the Electoral College. In 2020 Biden won the
popular vote by an even larger margin than Hillary and the Electoral
College.
Hiller "won" the popular vote only by a plurality. To actually /win/ a
race based on the popular vote she would have had to get a majority.
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the
votes.
[1] If you are wondering "when", since Jan 6 is pending, the answer I
would suggest is: everything would move back two months. The election
would be in September. The runoff, if needed, would be in November.
The Party Convention and Primary dates would have to be adjusted as
well.
At this point, the Electoral College is the only vote that counts in the
race for President/Vice President.
That's been true since the beginning of the United States of America
(as opposed, IIRC, to the earlier confederation).
And Jules Verne landed on the moon first. Everyone knows that.
Well, Beford & Cavor did, anyway.
[more stuff deleted for brevity]
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the
votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the
votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would
be wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the
votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would
be wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the
votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be
wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
On 8/23/24 08:58, Paul S Person wrote:
I don't believe this is true in most cases. For example, take a race for >Governor of just about any state. Democrat candidate get 48%. Republican >candidate gets 47%. Greens get 3%. The remaining 2% gets split among
many fringe parties. The Democrat candidate will now be the Governor and >there won't be a run off.
This was true in Kansas, Nevada, and Oregon in the 2022 elections. See >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_gubernatorial_elections
for the actual info.
However, in the Primary elections, many parties require that a candidate
get a majority before being declared as the party's candidate.
In article <vaefm9$1p7ki$[email protected]>,
Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:48 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a >>> runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would
be wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
And how exactly is that going to work with the Electoral College?
The ranked voting system would work by state, thus requiring no change
to the Electoral College. Thus, for example in 2016, if Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Pennsylvania had ranked voting, Hillary Clinton would had
won those states if she was the 2nd choice for most of the voters in
those states who had voted for Jill Stein (Green party).
On 8/24/2024 2:48 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would
be wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
And how exactly is that going to work with the Electoral College?
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be
wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ... prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to prohibit it.
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be
wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just
had one.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ... >prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to >prohibit it.
On 8/25/24 08:33, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a >>>>> runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ...
prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to
prohibit it.
I here in San Francisco find it borderline but maybe I just
do not clearly understand the way it is scored here in city elections
with some positions contested among many candidates.
In Alaska I bet they are more conservative than San Francisco
and find this innovative system too radical for their taste.
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be
wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just
had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an indeterminate calendar for schools.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a >>>>> runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ...
prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to
prohibit it.
It worked very well in London, Ontario and while some of my best friends >live in London, I don't think that on the whole the population is much >smarter than average.
The conservative provincial government then forbid it, offering as usual
no actual reason.
Joke was on them, though, because the old system delivered us a very
left wing Toronto mayor, while ranked voting would have let in a >conservative (the conservative vote total was higher, but split).
And though I personally prefer the mayor we have, it is clear that in
this election the will of the people was not reflected in the result.
If you want to, just vote for the candidate of your choice, leave the
rest blank. Or rank them 1,2,3. I don't see how that's hard.
On 8/25/24 08:33, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a >>>>> runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ...
prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to
prohibit it.
I here in San Francisco find it borderline but maybe I just
do not clearly understand the way it is scored here in city elections
with some positions contested among many candidates.
In Alaska I bet they are more conservative than San Francisco
and find this innovative system too radical for their taste.
But since this is San Francisco radical is on the menu.
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just
had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly >won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an >indeterminate calendar for schools.
On 26/08/2024 05:16, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just
had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly
won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an
indeterminate calendar for schools.
Do it on a Saturday, when schools are closed, as are many, but not all, >businesses.
And if you allow early- and postal-voting, the problem just goes away.
P.S. Yes, yes, I know the USA chose Tuesday to restrict the number of >actual voters.
On 26/08/2024 05:16, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just
had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an indeterminate calendar for schools.
Do it on a Saturday, when schools are closed, as are many, but not all, businesses.
And if you allow early- and postal-voting, the problem just goes away.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
P.S. Yes, yes, I know the USA chose Tuesday to restrict the number of
actual voters.
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 10:21:11 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/25/24 08:33, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a >>>>>> runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ...
prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to
prohibit it.
I here in San Francisco find it borderline but maybe I just
do not clearly understand the way it is scored here in city elections
with some positions contested among many candidates.
In Alaska I bet they are more conservative than San Francisco
and find this innovative system too radical for their taste.
But since this is San Francisco radical is on the menu.
IIRC, it may have had more to do with how long it took to get a
result. Perhaps they felt ... embarassed.
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 10:21:11 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/25/24 08:33, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a >>>>>> runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ...
prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to
prohibit it.
I here in San Francisco find it borderline but maybe I just
do not clearly understand the way it is scored here in city elections
with some positions contested among many candidates.
In Alaska I bet they are more conservative than San Francisco
and find this innovative system too radical for their taste.
But since this is San Francisco radical is on the menu.
IIRC, it may have had more to do with how long it took to get a
result. Perhaps they felt ... embarassed.
On 25 Aug 2024 19:16:49 GMT, Chris Buckley <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just
had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly >>won't allow a quick second round.
Which is why I suggested moving things back /two/ months.
And did you really mean to suggest that French elections are somehow
less secure than ours?
The French, to be sure, are very strange: a few years ago, one of
their traffic officers gave a ticket to a Muslim woman because her
veil covered her nose (not her eyes) and so prevented her from seeing
well enough to drive.
I have, of course, long been aware that the French are famous for
talking through their noses, but this is the only time I have heard
that they see through them as well.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before >>this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an >>indeterminate calendar for schools.
Locally, schools tend to close whenever it snows. If they can do it
for snow, they can do it for elections. It's not tough to have an indeterminate calendar for schools at all.
Of course, an all-mail system (with minimal physical places for voting
[1]) elminates the problem of schools being polling places.
[1] One per county, I think. These are for people who need assistance,
and people who decide to register and vote on voting day itself
(those, of course, cast provisional ballots which are counted once
their registration is validated).
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:39:22 -0400, William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have
seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50%
of the
votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it
would be
wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ...
prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to >>>> prohibit it.
It worked very well in London, Ontario and while some of my best friends >>> live in London, I don't think that on the whole the population is much
smarter than average.
The conservative provincial government then forbid it, offering as usual >>> no actual reason.
Joke was on them, though, because the old system delivered us a very
left wing Toronto mayor, while ranked voting would have let in a
conservative (the conservative vote total was higher, but split).
Only if the second choices were all the /other/ conservative.
The conservatives were all much of a muchness barring one former chief
of police. I can't see people selecting the current, very left mayor as
a second choice. Perhaps her liberal rival would be a choice for those
who oppose having a police chief as mayor.
Voting (1) Conservative, (2) Conservative (3) Conservative would have
been likely.
As one such candidate was head and shoulders above the others. It's hard
to imagine she wouldn't have been one of the three choices.
And though I personally prefer the mayor we have, it is clear that in
this election the will of the people was not reflected in the result.
Actually, I think it was. If the people had /wanted/ a conservative,
only one would have been running.
I don't see how the people's desires have any effect here. Anyone can
run for office.
We have no power over those who run, except to vote against them. I,
for example, was very annoyed that there were two left wing candidates,
of which one had absolutely no chance. But I had no ability to dissuade
him from running.
There is a reason to run for mayor despite having no chance of winning,
and that is as a beginning of the next election, or the one after. So ambitious people will always be running, preventing a one-on-one match between the two dominant candidates (if indeed there are such).
A majority voted for conservative candidates, a minority for liberal/
left candidates but the minority prevailed. I think that is a bad
thing, and can be avoided for the most part by a simple change to the
ballot (ranked ballots do not avoid all problems, naturally).
In this case the whole thing is of little consequence. In other cases, though, it could be more serious.
If you want to, just vote for the candidate of your choice, leave the
rest blank. Or rank them 1,2,3. I don't see how that's hard.
I'm not in Alaska and I don't know if/when we will try it here.
And wasn't there a primary somewhere where "None of the Above" won?
Once I realized that in some states people can vote in the primary of
the other party (Nixon encouraged republicans to vote in democratic
primaries for McGovern), I lost all confidence in the primary system.
Mind you, our method of selecting potential members of parliament is
even worse.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an indeterminate calendar for schools.
On 8/25/2024 2:16 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an indeterminate calendar for schools.
Here, southwest Texas, I don't know of a polling place that's in a
school. Churches, fire stations, city hall, county courthouse but no
schools.
On 8/25/2024 2:16 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching >> a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly
won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an
indeterminate calendar for schools.
Here, southwest Texas, I don't know of a polling place that's in a
school. Churches, fire stations, city hall, county courthouse but no
schools.
On 8/25/2024 2:16 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly
won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an
indeterminate calendar for schools.
Here, southwest Texas, I don't know of a polling place that's in a
school. Churches, fire stations, city hall, county courthouse but no
schools.
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 17:39:22 -0400, William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a >>>>>>> runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>>>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ...
prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to >>>> prohibit it.
It worked very well in London, Ontario and while some of my best friends >>> live in London, I don't think that on the whole the population is much
smarter than average.
The conservative provincial government then forbid it, offering as usual >>> no actual reason.
Joke was on them, though, because the old system delivered us a very
left wing Toronto mayor, while ranked voting would have let in a
conservative (the conservative vote total was higher, but split).
Only if the second choices were all the /other/ conservative.
The conservatives were all much of a muchness barring one former chief
of police. I can't see people selecting the current, very left mayor as
a second choice. Perhaps her liberal rival would be a choice for those
who oppose having a police chief as mayor.
Voting (1) Conservative, (2) Conservative (3) Conservative would have
been likely.
As one such candidate was head and shoulders above the others. It's hard
to imagine she wouldn't have been one of the three choices.
And though I personally prefer the mayor we have, it is clear that in
this election the will of the people was not reflected in the result.
Actually, I think it was. If the people had /wanted/ a conservative,
only one would have been running.
I don't see how the people's desires have any effect here. Anyone can
run for office.
We have no power over those who run, except to vote against them. I,
for example, was very annoyed that there were two left wing candidates,
of which one had absolutely no chance. But I had no ability to dissuade
him from running.
There is a reason to run for mayor despite having no chance of winning,
and that is as a beginning of the next election, or the one after. So >ambitious people will always be running, preventing a one-on-one match >between the two dominant candidates (if indeed there are such).
A majority voted for conservative candidates, a minority for
liberal/left candidates but the minority prevailed. I think that is a
bad thing, and can be avoided for the most part by a simple change to
the ballot (ranked ballots do not avoid all problems, naturally).
In this case the whole thing is of little consequence. In other cases, >though, it could be more serious.
If you want to, just vote for the candidate of your choice, leave the
rest blank. Or rank them 1,2,3. I don't see how that's hard.
I'm not in Alaska and I don't know if/when we will try it here.
And wasn't there a primary somewhere where "None of the Above" won?
Once I realized that in some states people can vote in the primary of
the other party (Nixon encouraged republicans to vote in democratic >primaries for McGovern), I lost all confidence in the primary system.
Mind you, our method of selecting potential members of parliament is
even worse.
On 8/26/24 08:45, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sun, 25 Aug 2024 10:21:11 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/25/24 08:33, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a >>>>>>> runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>>>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ...
prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to >>>> prohibit it.
I here in San Francisco find it borderline but maybe I just
do not clearly understand the way it is scored here in city elections
with some positions contested among many candidates.
In Alaska I bet they are more conservative than San Francisco
and find this innovative system too radical for their taste.
But since this is San Francisco radical is on the menu.
IIRC, it may have had more to do with how long it took to get a
result. Perhaps they felt ... embarassed.
Our tie in a not San Francisco county took recounts and
it seemed like months to resolve and it still was a tie. As I
mentioned the elder candidate yeilded to the younger.
In article <[email protected]>,
"Gary R. Schmidt" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26/08/2024 05:16, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >> >>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just >> >> had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching >> > a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly >> > won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an
indeterminate calendar for schools.
Do it on a Saturday, when schools are closed, as are many, but not all,
businesses.
And if you allow early- and postal-voting, the problem just goes away.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
P.S. Yes, yes, I know the USA chose Tuesday to restrict the number of
actual voters.
It was adapted in 1845 to match the lifestyle of a mostly agrarian
society (after harvest, 1 day of travel to polling place, doesn't
interfere with Sunday).
On 2024-08-26, Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 25 Aug 2024 19:16:49 GMT, Chris Buckley <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just >>>> had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require >>>months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching >>>a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly >>>won't allow a quick second round.
Which is why I suggested moving things back /two/ months.
And did you really mean to suggest that French elections are somehow
less secure than ours?
French elections are *much* simpler than ours. Except in unusual >circumstances, a voter in France: goes to their designated polling
place on voting day, presents their official photo id, and casts one
or two votes. No early voting. No mail voting (deemed too subject to >fraud). No drop boxes. No online voting (except overseas). No
provisional voting. No absentee voting, though you can go through the
legal system and designate a friend to vote in person for you (no way
for you to verify they voted the way you wanted). Very few voting
machines; most places are completely manual which works because
everything is right there in one place in front of the counters.
Probably the big difference is that the French do not have to deal
with the complexity of our ballots. They cast a couple of votes at
most normally. I think there were over 20 votes in my last ballot.
Ensuring a completely correct ballot form takes time.
The French, to be sure, are very strange: a few years ago, one of
their traffic officers gave a ticket to a Muslim woman because her
veil covered her nose (not her eyes) and so prevented her from seeing
well enough to drive.
I have, of course, long been aware that the French are famous for
talking through their noses, but this is the only time I have heard
that they see through them as well.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before >>>this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an >>>indeterminate calendar for schools.
Locally, schools tend to close whenever it snows. If they can do it
for snow, they can do it for elections. It's not tough to have an
indeterminate calendar for schools at all.
Baloney. School districts would not give up their snow days for an election; >they are too precious. I lived in upstate New York and had to go to school
on spring break holidays to make up for too many bad weather days. The school >calendar would need to be extended by a day (unless global warming gets rid >of snow days!)
Of course, an all-mail system (with minimal physical places for voting
[1]) elminates the problem of schools being polling places.
It's not clear your two months would be enough then, depending on
what elections had two phases (just Presidential might be doable).
--[1] One per county, I think. These are for people who need assistance,
and people who decide to register and vote on voting day itself
(those, of course, cast provisional ballots which are counted once
their registration is validated).
On 8/26/24 18:03, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 8/25/2024 2:16 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
Many things would have to change here.� Security procedures require
months of preparation now.� The voting/tallying period is now approaching >>> a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots.� It certainly >>> won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places.� It's tough to have an
indeterminate calendar for schools.
Here, southwest Texas, I don't know of a polling place that's in a
school. Churches, fire stations, city hall, county courthouse but no
schools.
In San Francisco we use any space available, the lobby of a big
building may have space or a closed store.(too many of those around).But
I vote at home then carry my ballot to a collection box. I used to drop
it at City Hall but that is very tiring(for me) and for many years now I >have voted at home and hand carried my ballot to a collection box. With >DeJoy trying to put the Post Office out of business I would not entrust
it to the US Mail.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:53:43 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/26/24 18:03, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 8/25/2024 2:16 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching >>>> a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly >>>> won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before >>>> this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an >>>> indeterminate calendar for schools.
Here, southwest Texas, I don't know of a polling place that's in a
school. Churches, fire stations, city hall, county courthouse but no
schools.
In San Francisco we use any space available, the lobby of a big
building may have space or a closed store.(too many of those around).But
I vote at home then carry my ballot to a collection box. I used to drop
it at City Hall but that is very tiring(for me) and for many years now I
have voted at home and hand carried my ballot to a collection box. With
DeJoy trying to put the Post Office out of business I would not entrust
it to the US Mail.
Dubious as I am of DeJoy, I must report this:
every month I mail two checks out on the 1st
one is to a local charity (in Seattle, WA)
one is to an international charity (in Washington, DC)
in March 2024, the local check cleared on the 7th and the
international check cleared on the 11th
in August 2024, they both cleared on the 8th
So I would say that there has been some improvement recently.
Dubious as I am of DeJoy, I must report this:
every month I mail two checks out on the 1st
one is to a local charity (in Seattle, WA)
one is to an international charity (in Washington, DC)
in March 2024, the local check cleared on the 7th and the
international check cleared on the 11th
in August 2024, they both cleared on the 8th
So I would say that there has been some improvement recently.
On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:48:32 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 2:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
IOW, if it were the popular vote that counted, 2016 would have seen a
runoff election [1] exactly two choices: Hillary and Trump. The
expectation being that one or the other would get more that 50% of the >>>> votes.
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be
wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Which is why some are advocating for a ranked voting system.
Which the citizens of Alaska, IIRC, will shortly be voting on ... >prohibiting, having had actual experience with it.
It must be pretty stinky to get enough people to sign an initiative to >prohibit it.
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be
wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just
had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly >won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an >indeterminate calendar for schools.
On 8/27/2024 11:19 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
Dubious as I am of DeJoy, I must report this:
every month I mail two checks out on the 1st
one is to a local charity (in Seattle, WA)
one is to an international charity (in Washington, DC)
in March 2024, the local check cleared on the 7th and the
international check cleared on the 11th
in August 2024, they both cleared on the 8th
So I would say that there has been some improvement recently.
USPS said in a statement issued on August 22 that it is holding a pre-
filing conference to discuss "plans to improve mail processing and transportation" across the country. While some customers will see
improved delivery times—specifically those that live within 50 miles of
its largest processing facilities, others who live more rurally won't be
so lucky.
"Depending on location, time and distance, expected time to deliver will increase for some ZIP code pairs," the release reads. Exactly how many
zip codes could be affected is not reported. Newsweek has contacted the
USPS for clarification via email.
On 25 Aug 2024 19:16:49 GMT, Chris Buckley <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-08-25, Cryptoengineer <[email protected]> wrote:Voting on Saturdays works in Australia
On 8/24/2024 3:37 PM, BCFD 36 wrote:
...
Only if that is how the election laws were written. I think it would be >>>> wildly impractical to hold multiple national elections.
Why? Lots of countries have elections with multiple rounds. France just
had one.
Many things would have to change here. Security procedures require
months of preparation now. The voting/tallying period is now approaching
a month between early voting and delivery of mail ballots. It certainly
won't allow a quick second round.
Locally, all schools are closed on election day and even the day before
this year due to schools being polling places. It's tough to have an
indeterminate calendar for schools.
On 8/27/2024 7:00 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 8/27/2024 11:19 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
Dubious as I am of DeJoy, I must report this:
every month I mail two checks out on the 1st
one is to a local charity (in Seattle, WA)
one is to an international charity (in Washington, DC)
in March 2024, the local check cleared on the 7th and the
international check cleared on the 11th
in August 2024, they both cleared on the 8th
So I would say that there has been some improvement recently.
USPS said in a statement issued on August 22 that it is holding a pre-
filing conference to discuss "plans to improve mail processing and
transportation" across the country. While some customers will see
improved delivery times�specifically those that live within 50 miles of
its largest processing facilities, others who live more rurally won't be
so lucky.
"Depending on location, time and distance, expected time to deliver will
increase for some ZIP code pairs," the release reads. Exactly how many
zip codes could be affected is not reported. Newsweek has contacted the
USPS for clarification via email.
Other articles on this indicate it will be the "deep" rural areas that
have longer delivery windows.
On 8/27/2024 11:19 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
Dubious as I am of DeJoy, I must report this:
every month I mail two checks out on the 1st
one is to a local charity (in Seattle, WA)
one is to an international charity (in Washington, DC)
in March 2024, the local check cleared on the 7th and the
international check cleared on the 11th
in August 2024, they both cleared on the 8th
So I would say that there has been some improvement recently.
USPS said in a statement issued on August 22 that it is holding a
pre-filing conference to discuss "plans to improve mail processing and >transportation" across the country. While some customers will see
improved delivery times�specifically those that live within 50 miles of
its largest processing facilities, others who live more rurally won't be
so lucky.
"Depending on location, time and distance, expected time to deliver will >increase for some ZIP code pairs," the release reads. Exactly how many--
zip codes could be affected is not reported. Newsweek has contacted the
USPS for clarification via email.
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 07:47:32 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 8/27/2024 7:00 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 8/27/2024 11:19 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
Dubious as I am of DeJoy, I must report this:
every month I mail two checks out on the 1st
one is to a local charity (in Seattle, WA)
one is to an international charity (in Washington, DC)
in March 2024, the local check cleared on the 7th and the
international check cleared on the 11th
in August 2024, they both cleared on the 8th
So I would say that there has been some improvement recently.
USPS said in a statement issued on August 22 that it is holding a pre-
filing conference to discuss "plans to improve mail processing and
transportation" across the country. While some customers will see
improved delivery times—specifically those that live within 50 miles of >>> its largest processing facilities, others who live more rurally won't be >>> so lucky.
"Depending on location, time and distance, expected time to deliver will >>> increase for some ZIP code pairs," the release reads. Exactly how many
zip codes could be affected is not reported. Newsweek has contacted the
USPS for clarification via email.
Other articles on this indicate it will be the "deep" rural areas that
have longer delivery windows.
Looks like the Republicans might want to talk to their guy DeJoy about
the importance of Rural Free Delivery to their voters.
In San Francisco we use any space available, the lobby of a big
building may have space or a closed store.(too many of those around).But
I vote at home then carry my ballot to a collection box. I used to drop
it at City Hall but that is very tiring(for me) and for many years now I
have voted at home and hand carried my ballot to a collection box. With
DeJoy trying to put the Post Office out of business I would not entrust
it to the US Mail.
Once I realized that in some states people can vote in the primary of
the other party (Nixon encouraged republicans to vote in democratic
primaries for McGovern), I lost all confidence in the primary system.
Mind you, our method of selecting potential members of parliament is
even worse.
Our tie in a not San Francisco county took recounts and
it seemed like months to resolve and it still was a tie. As I
mentioned the elder candidate yeilded to the younger.
Here, southwest Texas, I don't know of a polling place that's in a
school. Churches, fire stations, city hall, county courthouse but no
schools.
Voting on Saturdays works in Australia
But that way the wealthy can't force the workers to not vote by not
letting them have time off from work to vote!
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 20:03:20 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Here, southwest Texas, I don't know of a polling place that's in a
school. Churches, fire stations, city hall, county courthouse but no >>schools.
In Canada polling places used to be commonly in elementary school
gymnasiums. In 2020-2021 most schools said no to the electoral
authorities ("we've got to protect our kids!") with the result that in
our 2021 provincial election most polling places were in church halls
or vacant storefronts in shopping malls.
On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:43:39 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
Our tie in a not San Francisco county took recounts and
it seemed like months to resolve and it still was a tie. As I
mentioned the elder candidate yeilded to the younger.
We've never had a tie vote in our area but a couple of elections ago
the school board chairman was convicted for DUI and decided to run for >re-election anyhow. He lost by ONE vote and chose to waive his right
to seek a recount (which he was legally entitled to do when the margin
of victory was under 1% of the votes cast)
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:50:10 -0400, William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
Once I realized that in some states people can vote in the primary of
the other party (Nixon encouraged republicans to vote in democratic >>primaries for McGovern), I lost all confidence in the primary system.
Mind you, our method of selecting potential members of parliament is
even worse.
How so? In Canada you actually have to join the party of your choice
in order to vote in what in the US would be a primary.
In my own case while a party member I voted for a candidate I will not
be voting for in the general election.
This may sound strange but the party I support is busy choosing
candidates for the next federal election since we have a minority
government in parliament and that creates an incentive for parties to >nominate their local candidates early. Unfortunately for me Canada >redistributes its seat boundaries every 10 years and in our area I
live 3 blocks east of the new riding boundary - so when the election
comes, I'll be voting in the neighboring boundary.
I expect a Canadian to understand how this could happen (but
realistically many Americans may be confused as hell). I'm annoyed (as
my neighborhood has been in the same riding since before I was born
but that's how the redistribution process (which happens every 10
years 2 or 3 years after the decennial census) works.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:53:43 -0700, Bobbie Sellers ><[email protected]> wrote:
In San Francisco we use any space available, the lobby of a big >>building may have space or a closed store.(too many of those around).ButI wouldn't trust my ballot to anything other than a certified election >official. I once used a mail-in ballot but was nervous about it.
I vote at home then carry my ballot to a collection box. I used to drop >>it at City Hall but that is very tiring(for me) and for many years now I >>have voted at home and hand carried my ballot to a collection box. With >>DeJoy trying to put the Post Office out of business I would not entrust
it to the US Mail.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 22:53:43 -0700, Bobbie Sellers <[email protected]> wrote:
In San Francisco we use any space available, the lobby of a bigI wouldn't trust my ballot to anything other than a certified election official. I once used a mail-in ballot but was nervous about it.
building may have space or a closed store.(too many of those around).But
I vote at home then carry my ballot to a collection box. I used to drop
it at City Hall but that is very tiring(for me) and for many years now I
have voted at home and hand carried my ballot to a collection box. With
DeJoy trying to put the Post Office out of business I would not entrust
it to the US Mail.
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:50:10 -0400, William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
Once I realized that in some states people can vote in the primary of
the other party (Nixon encouraged republicans to vote in democratic
primaries for McGovern), I lost all confidence in the primary system.
Mind you, our method of selecting potential members of parliament is
even worse.
How so? In Canada you actually have to join the party of your choice
in order to vote in what in the US would be a primary.
Or, for $10 and a bottle of cheap booze you can agree to become a paid >member of some party or other, go to a nomination meeting, vote as >requested, then go back to the street to enjoy your booze.
Or, you can be bused in by a German crook to vote for delegates who will >vote for his preferred bought and paid for party leader.
Or, you can be a foreign student drafted by officials of your country to >vote for the candidate of your choice in a nomination meeting, despite
not being a citizen.
Or, not being a citizen, you can run for MPP, be elected, and become a >cabinet member in a government dedicated to destroying the country.
All of this has been in the news. Some recently.
Nobody should be allowed to vote in a nomination meeting who is not
(a) A citizen
(b) A paid member of the party for at least a year.
That wouldn't eliminate all the abuses but it is easily implemented and >would render the system less laughably corruptible.
But our major parties don't want it. It would handicap their ability to >impose preferred candidates on us.
We've never had a tie vote in our area but a couple of elections ago
the school board chairman was convicted for DUI and decided to run for >>re-election anyhow. He lost by ONE vote and chose to waive his right
to seek a recount (which he was legally entitled to do when the margin
of victory was under 1% of the votes cast)
IIRC, possibly for closer races than a mere 1%, a recount can be
mandatory. At least in Washington State.
After a certain point, again IIRC, a recount is always possible if the
Party or candidate wanting it is willing to pay for it.
Somewhere in between it may well be an option that does not have to be
paid for.
I expect a Canadian to understand how this could happen (but
realistically many Americans may be confused as hell). I'm annoyed (as
my neighborhood has been in the same riding since before I was born
but that's how the redistribution process (which happens every 10
years 2 or 3 years after the decennial census) works.
We do much the same in the USA.
The effects of the 2020 Census on elections are still being felt --
nay, in some cases, still being /litigated/. Which may not change
things this year, but which means that the /next/ election may, in
some States, use different boundaries. Since that will be in 2026,
more than half-way to the next Census, this is getting embarassing.
And there's already been at least one instance of the newest new
change not making it down far enough to prevent some voters from
voting in the /wrong/ district (Congressional or Legislative,
depending on the level).
Imagine if you found yourself voting for the same person anyway
because the change hadn't filtered down far enough to affect your
ballot.
I wouldn't trust my ballot to anything other than a certified election
official. I once used a mail-in ballot but was nervous about it.
Since I currently work for one of the county government offices in the
county government center and they have ballot drop-off boxes there
that's how I vote.
Or, you can be a foreign student drafted by officials of your country to
vote for the candidate of your choice in a nomination meeting, despite
not being a citizen.
In San Francisco we use any space available, the lobby of a big >>>building may have space or a closed store.(too many of those around).But >>>I vote at home then carry my ballot to a collection box. I used to drop >>>it at City Hall but that is very tiring(for me) and for many years now I >>>have voted at home and hand carried my ballot to a collection box. With >>>DeJoy trying to put the Post Office out of business I would not entrust >>>it to the US Mail.I wouldn't trust my ballot to anything other than a certified election >>official. I once used a mail-in ballot but was nervous about it.
The only problems I have had with the USPS and elections is when they
decide that distributing the Voter Pamphlets is optional. It's not.
And, IIRC, they get /paid/ to do it.
Mail in, mail back, get email confirming receipt, get email confirming
will be counted (ie, signature passed inspection). A simple process.
Republicans hate it because it lets just anyone (who qualifies) vote.
They think only people who vote Republican should be allowed to vote.
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 08:11:29 -0700, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
In San Francisco we use any space available, the lobby of a big >>>>building may have space or a closed store.(too many of those around).But >>>>I vote at home then carry my ballot to a collection box. I used to drop >>>>it at City Hall but that is very tiring(for me) and for many years now I >>>>have voted at home and hand carried my ballot to a collection box. With >>>>DeJoy trying to put the Post Office out of business I would not entrust >>>>it to the US Mail.I wouldn't trust my ballot to anything other than a certified election >>>official. I once used a mail-in ballot but was nervous about it.
The only problems I have had with the USPS and elections is when they >>decide that distributing the Voter Pamphlets is optional. It's not.
And, IIRC, they get /paid/ to do it.
Around here, the local equivalent is the single document related to
the election you are allowed to bring into the voting station. They
don't check to see if you have put check marks next to candidates'
names.
The last election we had was during the peak of the pandemic where the
main change was that instead of folding your ballot and handing it to
the poll clerk who popped it into the box; during the pandemic the
poll clerk was behind a plexiglass shield and you were required to
fold your ballot and when the clerk said OK (meaning you'd folded it >properly) stuck it through the slot of the box which was chained to
the table but was outside the plexiglass screen.
As always we lined up to vote and the line was longer than usual
though mostly because we were standing 6-10 feet apart in the line.
Mail in, mail back, get email confirming receipt, get email confirming
will be counted (ie, signature passed inspection). A simple process.
Republicans hate it because it lets just anyone (who qualifies) vote.
They think only people who vote Republican should be allowed to vote.
I would have thought it was mostly (a) to ensure only citizens voted
and (b) that nobody attempted to vote twice (though in a recent
election there was a scandal concerning one group of immigrants who
professed not to speak English but were caught going from station to
station voting multiple times - we're talking about a team of about
20-30 individuals who were though to have voted 15-20 times each)
On my last election I voted then asked the poll clerk how many people
were on the list from my address. He wouldn't tell me until after I
voted then told me the answer after I had told him that my wife had
died since the election before that and wanted to ensure she was off
the list which she was.
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 08:11:29 -0700, Paul S Person[stuff deleted]
I would have thought it was mostly (a) to ensure only citizens voted
and (b) that nobody attempted to vote twice (though in a recent
election there was a scandal concerning one group of immigrants who
professed not to speak English but were caught going from station to
station voting multiple times - we're talking about a team of about
20-30 individuals who were though to have voted 15-20 times each)
On 9/3/24 13:15, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 08:11:29 -0700, Paul S Person[stuff deleted]
I would have thought it was mostly (a) to ensure only citizens voted
and (b) that nobody attempted to vote twice (though in a recent
election there was a scandal concerning one group of immigrants who
professed not to speak English but were caught going from station to
station voting multiple times - we're talking about a team of about
20-30 individuals who were though to have voted 15-20 times each)
I would be very interested to know where this happened.
On 9/5/24 10:42, BCFD 36 wrote:
On 9/3/24 13:15, The Horny Goat wrote:Another rumor put out by the loser in 2000.
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 08:11:29 -0700, Paul S Person[stuff deleted]
I would have thought it was mostly (a) to ensure only citizens voted
and (b) that nobody attempted to vote twice (though in a recent
election there was a scandal concerning one group of immigrants who
professed not to speak English but were caught going from station to
station voting multiple times - we're talking about a team of about
20-30 individuals who were though to have voted 15-20 times each)
I would be very interested to know where this happened.
So far the only voters doing things illegally have
been Native Born White American Republicans.
It is, however, true that all the spectacular stuff (forcing a House
District election to be completely redone, alternate Elector slates
done so incompetently that those on them are liable to trial, ballots
so confusing that votes for the Republican candidate actually went to
a thrid party candidate in Florida in 2000, etc, etc) was done by Republicans. Since, say, 2000 or so anyway.
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 19:53:45 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/5/24 10:42, BCFD 36 wrote:
On 9/3/24 13:15, The Horny Goat wrote:Another rumor put out by the loser in 2000.
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 08:11:29 -0700, Paul S Person[stuff deleted]
I would have thought it was mostly (a) to ensure only citizens voted
and (b) that nobody attempted to vote twice (though in a recent
election there was a scandal concerning one group of immigrants who
professed not to speak English but were caught going from station to
station voting multiple times - we're talking about a team of about
20-30 individuals who were though to have voted 15-20 times each)
I would be very interested to know where this happened.
So far the only voters doing things illegally have
been Native Born White American Republicans.
I don't think that's entirely fair.
I think one of the "sister acts" (surviving sister voted for both
herself and her deceased sister) involved votes for Democrats.
But these minor problems were not only caught but did not influence
the elections they occurred in. IOW, nobody won or lost by 1 vote.
It is, however, true that all the spectacular stuff (forcing a House
District election to be completely redone, alternate Elector slates
done so incompetently that those on them are liable to trial, ballots
so confusing that votes for the Republican candidate actually went to
a thrid party candidate in Florida in 2000, etc, etc) was done by Republicans. Since, say, 2000 or so anyway.
But, just as it never occurred to them that reversing Roe v Wade might
cost them white female suburban votes, so it also never occurs to them
that a lot of their voters are older and so more likely to vote by
mail in States where in-person voting is the norm. So the harder they
make it to vote by mail, the more of their own voters they impede.
The cases of actual voter fraud are very few and mostly consist of
someone voting a deceased housemate's ballot. Although both 2016 and
2020 produced at least one MAGA voter who voted twice, in one case
because Trump had convinced her that her vote wouldn't be counted.
On 9/3/24 13:15, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 08:11:29 -0700, Paul S Person[stuff deleted]
I would have thought it was mostly (a) to ensure only citizens voted
and (b) that nobody attempted to vote twice (though in a recent
election there was a scandal concerning one group of immigrants who
professed not to speak English but were caught going from station to
station voting multiple times - we're talking about a team of about
20-30 individuals who were though to have voted 15-20 times each)
I would be very interested to know where this happened.
People within the conservative party engaged in voter suppression on a
large scale in 2011 and successfully stonewalled the investigation to
the point that only one person was tried and convicted. In the same
election the liberal candidate in the riding south of me filed suit >claiming that 181 illegal votes had been cast. A judge threw out 79 but
the supreme court in a 4-3 decision let the election stand even though
thew winning margin was 26.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:34:51 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,381 |