Elections Rigged?

[Above_70Percent]

Do you guys think the government rigs the Elections?

 

[bamthedoc]

The system is far too complex for simple manipulation. There are tallies, first, from ballets. These are what we are used to, as most of us vote via regular ballets. However, the second method of voting comes form absentee ballets. This is how many military personel have to vote due to being over seas.

What news stations base their "preliminary winners" is based on the regular ballets. This is, obviously, an inaccurate way to view who won the vote. *looks to Al Gore* The electoral college is there to assure that all votes come in from each district. Now then, each state's electoral college works differently. North Carolina works through the "state" system. This means that the majority of all votes wins the electoral for all of NC. California, on the other hand and to the best of my knowledge, has a "district" system. This means that each district casts a separate electoral vote to be counted.

It is hard to rig this system, but I wouldn't put it past all possiblity.

 

[GlockHolliday]

arent they starting "online voting" this year? good lord, you thought the last election was bad. wait till this one comes down to a customer service misinterpretation in New Delhi

 

[Above_70Percent]

well, the media only knows what the government tells them. And who counts the votes? Think about it

 

[Arkillo]

Bribe big businesses with tax cuts and other stuff, and they give you money to be reelected. Thats how it works

 

[Above_70Percent]

yep and thats it

 

[Ciphus]

Yeah, I don't think the tallying is wrong. It's more of the "I give you votes if you give me power" system that major corporations go by.

 

[bamthedoc]

You people have no idea how the election process works! If it appears that a candidate "bribbed" a big corporation, or vice-a-versa, that candidate can, and likely will, get disqualified. Online-Voting, from what I've heard, is suggested, but it is far too flawed for them to want to impliment it. Why? IT problems are holding it back. Such a system needs a few years to build up security and ensure that it cannot be hacked to falsify results.

 

[Arkillo]

No bam, you got it wrong.

Presidents go to Big Business for support money for their campaign. The Big Business wouldn't just give it for free, so they make some sort of agreement so they get something if and when the candidate gets to office. Just look at any of the history of the US, and you should be able to see it. Candidates also promise some form of bribe to people in EC that vote for them, but because EVERYONE in history (cept mabybe like the first couple presidents) did it, no one does anything about it

 

[bamthedoc]

Do you even realize who tax cuts help the most? Big Business may gain from it, but common citizens gain so much more. Small Businesses are able to open up as the "rich" we scrutinize so much are finally able to afford it. What we worry about so much with taxes, and thereby elections, are the so-called "rich" -- or middle-class and up citizens.

It may be beneficial for a business to back a presidential candidate, but it's not so much as to say that they determine an election. What you people most forget is that the truely rich, as in Warbuck and such names, are completely invisible to taxes thanks to the fact that stocks and bonds are "under the radar". Those can't be taxed as long as they remain in stocks and bonds.

It's amazing how you people rave about how unfair it is that the latest tax cuts were incremental when it taxes don't even affect the rich. What you should be worried about is if the presidential candidate does not level off (note: I did not say reduce or increase) the taxes as to make it fair for both business and people to prosper and grow and the government to pay for what is necessary.

We, unfortunately, look far too much at wether or not a presidential candidate is going to spend more, and quite frivilously, on welfare, medicare, social security and other such things. Adding to those often win elections rather than proper tax relief and spending.

 

[Above_70Percent]

its just basis of opinion bam

 

[bamthedoc]

What is? Economic facts that I stated or opinions on how a human made system of election if flawed? If it's the later, I'm likely to agree.

 

[Chain3r-]

The elections are rigged. In some countries canidates for president or leader of country have a set amount of money each canidate is allowed to spend towards the election. This makes it fair, unfortunately we have not developed such a system here in the United Stated of America. If President Bush spent all the money he had and Kerry did too Bush would have $8 for every $1 Kerry spent, because Bush has more money for campaigns. If you tell me this is fair then you are corrupted. I do not hold sides to elections based if the canidates are democratic or republic because I honestly don't think it matters, so I am not saying this isn't fair because I like Kerry (and I don't) but I'm saying this because three words Bush said at a speech and I quote, "Bring 'em on." The nerve of this is disturbing. Bush was talking about the War in Iraq. Presidents used to lead their soldiers into battles but now Bush just gives speeches and says such things. My brother died in Iraq, and Bush had no right to say that if he's unwilling to go into Iraq and fight them with our loved ones. I know Bush is trying to help Iraq but every day he's paving the same roads unwilling to walk them. Our government should and needs to set a limit of money canidates for presidental elections can spend, when they do that, it will be fair.
My brother->:shoot :lucifer <-Bush

 

[Above_70Percent]

very nice first post chain3r *applauds* u will be a good asset to BF

 

[Chain3r-]

Off Topic (Sorry): Every Tuesday my English class debates on a random topic and this is what we debated yesterday.

 

[Mustafa]

Off topic (sorry!) I like cheese that smells.

Please don't say two off topic things in a row.

Also, I'd like to add that if the elections were run by the government, and the president is the head of the government, it would either be one HUGE conpiracy or the president just didn't want to get re-elected, because as Head of State they would get to pick the next president.


The United States of America ->:shoot :lucifer <-Bush

If Bush wins this election we are all doomed.

 

[KillerKlown]

There arn't going to be Online Voting, its computer voting. The issue isn't hackers, its a that a person could put a computer chip into the computer or swap chips with a fake one. My school was one of the few in Maryland to test out the Touch-Screen Voters. It was pretty cool, I voted Stewie Griffen(baby off of Family Guy) as President, and Tony Saprano as Vice President, it was a good cut out of 4th period. Anyways, they think that someone could switch chips, and even if it doesn't happen, another Al Gore will come along and say it did happen, I stay stick with the punch outs...

 

[Ciphus]

Chain, you said that if they spent every dollar they had. Bush has more campaign money, but you do know that Kerry's net worth is approximately 7 times more than Bush. $164 million to $24 million. Now you can argue that his dad has more money, but you said all of his money. Now I know that Bush has more campaign money, but with net worth being 7 times more than Bush, I find it hard to believe that Bush could spend 8 dollars for every 1 of Kerry's.

Now all of that, and I'm not even goign to mention how filthy rich Kerry's wife is.

 

[Chain3r-]

I'll be sure to tell my Social Studies teacher he's wrong.

 

[Mustafa]

Well, I can just say that I'm waiting for the brutal campaign commercials to come on, they're always worth watching.