Election Integrity

[Offthemat]

18 minutes ago, mspart said:

On another note, I do not like the winner take all idea for electoral college votes.   I think it should be by district like NE does it.   You win in a congressional district, you get that electoral vote.   That seems fair to me and what the Founders were aiming at in principle.   

No no no!  The Founders considered all the matters that are argued today about elections and devised the most brilliant system ever created.  If the states electoral votes were assigned by district rather than winner take all, it would be the same as awarding the winner of the popular vote, with the metropolitan areas controlling the outcome. 

[Offthemat]

5 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I completed the 2020 US census on my IPhone.  If it was safe enough six years ago to use technology for deciding the number of Representatives each state gets and to distribute billions of dollars in federal funding why wouldn’t it be an option to use in elections?  91% of all Americans own a Smartphone which helps the shut ins that can’t get to a voting booth, eliminates mail in voting costs, and could allow the election to be completed on Election Day.  

Voting by phone or computer/internet would be even less secure than voting by mail.  The states that have vote by mail have essentially eliminated Republicans from winning statewide elections.  Coincidence?

[JimmySpeaks]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Voting by phone or computer/internet would be even less secure than voting by mail.  The states that have vote by mail have essentially eliminated Republicans from winning statewide elections.  Coincidence?

I disagree. Finger print/facial recognition alone could make it safer IMO.  And again I’ll ask, have we experienced any fraud with the US census, Social Security, etc.. when using technology?   

[mspart]

55 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I disagree. Finger print/facial recognition alone could make it safer IMO.  And again I’ll ask, have we experienced any fraud with the US census, Social Security, etc.. when using technology?   

Well, illegal aliens are counted in the census and make up numbers that determine congressional districts. 

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

No no no!  The Founders considered all the matters that are argued today about elections and devised the most brilliant system ever created.  If the states electoral votes were assigned by district rather than winner take all, it would be the same as awarding the winner of the popular vote, with the metropolitan areas controlling the outcome. 

 

This map states it differently.  This map bears out my point that big cities can control the country.   Just look how much red there is in the congressional districts in 2016.   And yet Clinton won the popular vote.   That country is Republican, yet the Hillary got more votes.   Thank goodness for the electoral college.  

mspart

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, mspart said:

This map states it differently.  This map bears out my point that big cities can control the country.   Just look how much red there is in the congressional districts in 2016.   And yet Clinton won the popular vote.   That country is Republican, yet the Hillary got more votes.   Thank goodness for the electoral college.  

 

 You said you didn’t like the winner takes all for electoral votes. 

[Offthemat]

3 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I disagree. Finger print/facial recognition alone could make it safer IMO.  And again I’ll ask, have we experienced any fraud with the US census, Social Security, etc.. when using technology?   

I bet you’d change your mind.

Treasury stopped nearly $100M in taxpayer money from going to dead people after new gov’t measure implemented

https://www.aol.com/articles/treasury-stopped-nearly-100m-taxpayer-103250000.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9jaXRpemVuZnJlZXByZXNzLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABqg_1dic4W-r2aho8hVnDE6AQxOreKO-EuQAi6GczRCF9egkhysxW248KtMCArctU8k6VkBWFr8KfNikLXdX0gg1NWhK0DOut8Phl-7qkzLdpCWnrsIxZjrI54OBT71ziWCawYeOch1FaOPeywbgYtPzBi7g8Q2P11cDJC30tdp

Edited July 21 by Offthemat

[JimmySpeaks]

3 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

I bet you’d change your mind.

You might be right but I tend to think it would be easier to find the fraud if you used it to replace mail in voting.  I’m for finishing the election and knowing the winner on Election Day.  

[Simpleman424]

I’ve thought about this over the years and I know a lot of people won’t like it or whatever but I’m all about less people voting. Now I’m not saying everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote but I am saying people should have the humility NOT to vote when they aren’t current with a majority of the issues OR they’re voting off a singular issue. We don’t need more people to vote we need the right people to vote (on both sides). It is a huge responsibility and I personally don’t want people contributing to things that can effect millions of lives when they can’t even be trusted to take the time to know what’s at stake and how it effects both sides. I’m just gonna go vote for the Republican/Democratic/Female/African American or whatever singular issue they’re voting on…get that stuff out of here.

[Offthemat]

2 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

I’ve thought about this over the years and I know a lot of people won’t like it or whatever but I’m all about less people voting. Now I’m not saying everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote but I am saying people should have the humility NOT to vote when they aren’t current with a majority of the issues OR they’re voting off a singular issue. We don’t need more people to vote we need the right people to vote (on both sides). It is a huge responsibility and I personally don’t want people contributing to things that can effect millions of lives when they can’t even be trusted to take the time to know what’s at stake and how it effects both sides. I’m just gonna go vote for the Republican/Democratic/Female/African American or whatever singular issue they’re voting on…get that stuff out of here.

The founders originally limited it to the people who had skin in the game.  

[mspart]

48 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

 You said you didn’t like the winner takes all for electoral votes. 

Correct.   Look at the map, those are how the votes came in in the individual congressional districts.   That's what I think would be better.  

mspart

[mspart]

27 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The founders originally limited it to the people who had skin in the game.  

Yes, this is true.  People with no skin in the game can justify stealing other people's money via taxation.  

mspart

[Simpleman424]

38 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The founders originally limited it to the people who had skin in the game.  

Well everyone has skin in the game…just not the humility to say “Maybe I shouldn’t put my hat in this ring…”

[JimmySpeaks]

5 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

I’ve thought about this over the years and I know a lot of people won’t like it or whatever but I’m all about less people voting. Now I’m not saying everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote but I am saying people should have the humility NOT to vote when they aren’t current with a majority of the issues OR they’re voting off a singular issue. We don’t need more people to vote we need the right people to vote (on both sides). It is a huge responsibility and I personally don’t want people contributing to things that can effect millions of lives when they can’t even be trusted to take the time to know what’s at stake and how it effects both sides. I’m just gonna go vote for the Republican/Democratic/Female/African American or whatever singular issue they’re voting on…get that stuff out of here.

So how many issues do they need to be current on?  And whom decides what the real issues are?  

[JimmySpeaks]

5 hours ago, Offthemat said:

The founders originally limited it to the people who had skin in the game.  

What does skin in the game mean in today’s world?  

[JimmySpeaks]

5 hours ago, mspart said:

Correct.   Look at the map, those are how the votes came in in the individual congressional districts.   That's what I think would be better.  

mspart

I like it but What do you do with gerrymandering?  That seems like a Pandora’s box to me. 
 

[WrestlingRasta]

18 hours ago, mspart said:

I disagree with the assertion that states would get greater priority from candidates, if that is what you are saying.  D candidates will concentrate on the big cities, R candidates on the rest of the country.   A few big cities could direct the affairs of the country if not for the electoral college and that was the concern of the Founders.   With that, candidates have to hit all the states.   Hillary ignored WI to her everlasting regret.   

On another note, I do not like the winner take all idea for electoral college votes.   I think it should be by district like NE does it.   You win in a congressional district, you get that electoral vote.   That seems fair to me and what the Founders were aiming at in principle.   

On another another note, I think mail in ballots should have a due date before the election.   Here in WA, it is all mail in ballot.   We don't get election results for 4-6 weeks.   That's ridiculous.   All kinds of shenanigans can happen with that, and I believe have.   The mail in ballot should be due one week before the general election.   Drop boxes for mail in ballots can be due day of election.   If you are going to have mail in voting, then they should be into the collection spot by election day so they can be counted on election day.   We used to have that, and now with all the technology, we are the laughing stock of the world because we don't know the results of elections until a month later.   Ridiculous.  

mspart

I was saying I believe the states that are much higher on the priority list now would be a little less, and priority would be more spread out.   That said, a lot of good points have been raised in these posts, make a lot of sense.  Thought provoking…

[WrestlingRasta]

12 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

I’ve thought about this over the years and I know a lot of people won’t like it or whatever but I’m all about less people voting. Now I’m not saying everyone shouldn’t have the right to vote but I am saying people should have the humility NOT to vote when they aren’t current with a majority of the issues OR they’re voting off a singular issue. We don’t need more people to vote we need the right people to vote (on both sides). It is a huge responsibility and I personally don’t want people contributing to things that can effect millions of lives when they can’t even be trusted to take the time to know what’s at stake and how it effects both sides. I’m just gonna go vote for the Republican/Democratic/Female/African American or whatever singular issue they’re voting on…get that stuff out of here.

This was my practice in my early years of eligible voter.  I didn’t really pay much attention to government issues and politicians, so I didn’t vote.  I knew I wasn’t very well informed (of my own doing).   It wasn’t until Clinton took a shot at Bin Laden, and everyone started saying it was nothing more than an attempt to draw attention away from the Lewinsky ordeal, that I started paying more attention to government happenings.  Fancy that, it took a blow job from the intern to get my attention to politics

[Caveira]

On 7/20/2026 at 1:25 PM, WrestlingRasta said:

Hahaha, and there it is, the reliable safe space.  
 

Good talkin to ya, as always. 

which playbook is this 

Gavin newsome - Trump is going to steal the 2026 elections 

 

 

[WrestlingRasta]

Right on cue, in the category of “And there it is”…..

When there’s good conversation going on, people sharing their own thoughts and their own insights, you can count on Cav for the copy and paste what about, without any insight of his own.  

[Simpleman424]

9 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

So how many issues do they need to be current on?  And whom decides what the real issues are?  

Yea it’s not a numbers game or anything. It’s more self reflection and humility…I don’t like speaking on things I’m not well versed on or at least confident I have a good grasp on. I’m surely not going to feel like I should participate in something that’s going to affect millions of lives just because I can have a say. I didn’t say anything about ranking issues in order of priority…just voting on a singular issue (to me anyway) is selfish…and to a degree that’s fine BUT more importantly can take away from the whole of issues and possibly losing out on a candidate that would (as a whole) be better for America. 

[JimmySpeaks]

26 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Yea it’s not a numbers game or anything. It’s more self reflection and humility…I don’t like speaking on things I’m not well versed on or at least confident I have a good grasp on. I’m surely not going to feel like I should participate in something that’s going to affect millions of lives just because I can have a say. I didn’t say anything about ranking issues in order of priority…just voting on a singular issue (to me anyway) is selfish…and to a degree that’s fine BUT more importantly can take away from the whole of issues and possibly losing out on a candidate that would (as a whole) be better for America. 

I see your point and I would agree that certain single issue voters could very well be considered selfish. That being said it will be very hard (in fact virtually impossible) for me to vote for any candidate supporting socialism.  If that’s being selfish then I’m guilty. 

Edited July 22 by JimmySpeaks

[Simpleman424]

10 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

I see your point and I would agree that certain single issue voters could very well be considered selfish. That being said it will be very hard (in fact virtually impossible) for me to vote for any candidate supporting socialism.  If that’s being selfish then I’m guilty. 

Nor could I but if they’re a socialist they likely have a bunch of stances on issues I’m less than comfortable with.  So it wouldn’t be a singular voting point. Lol

[Offthemat]

15 hours ago, mspart said:

Correct.   Look at the map, those are how the votes came in in the individual congressional districts.   That's what I think would be better.  

mspart

I see your point.  That the electoral vote might closely reflect the makeup of Congress.  Though I'm sure it would inspire more hi jinx in the form of reapportionment (gerrymandering) or malapportionment.  Opening the door to 538 court cases each election, while there is much less to litigate over state boundaries. 
 

They got pretty close to doing away with the electoral college in 1970.  Your idea would be better than that, in my opinion. 

[Offthemat]

10 hours ago, JimmySpeaks said:

What does skin in the game mean in today’s world?  

Being as their job is spending money, the people they get that money from would have skin in the game. 

[JimmySpeaks]

11 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Nor could I but if they’re a socialist they likely have a bunch of stances on issues I’m less than comfortable with.  So it wouldn’t be a singular voting point. Lol

Socialism is a deal breaker for me no matter what other stances they may take. IMO there’s no bigger threat to America and I’ll be voting for the person I think has the best chance to beat them.