OT Election results
 

I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know. An item on MSNBC
showed a better (no pun intended, but I'll take credit anyway)
indicator: since 1936, 17 elections in a row, this will be the 18th,
the last game before the elections that the Washington Redskins play
has "predicted" the outcome in that if the Redskins win , the
incumbent wins, if the Redskins lose, the challenger wins. They play
the Packers today at 1 pm. It's predicted the Packers(3-4) by 2 over
the Redskins(2-4). We don't have any of those Cheesehead hats so the
wife and I are going to cover our heads with slices of American cheese
and root for the favorites.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

I think you mean Maine. AFAIK, New Hampshire is winner take all.



Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:


It seems to me, if you split the EC vote, you eliminate any argument for
the EC. Then, why not just straight popular vote? Personally, I'm not a
big fan of the EC, but I don't think it's drawbacks are worth changing the
Constitution.

NYOB,
Whatever you do, don't give him your address, he just wants it so he can do
more personal research on you and your family. That way his insults might
actually hurt, which is his prime objective.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry
wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor
Bush.




The only poll that matters will be held Tuesday. What's left of my gut
tells me that Kerry is going to do very, very well in the Electoral
College and might achieve the Magic 300 number. I haven't a clue where
the popular vote will be. But if Kerry wins the EC and Bush takes the
popular vote, I'll be especially delighted...because that means the
Republicans will be calling for abolishing the Electoral College.
Delicious.

I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the
way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.




I think we should double our bet...to $2.00

I think Kerry will win the EC, and the popular vote is up for grabs.

--
Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument
for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the
American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions
without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your
Commander-in-Chief."

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

I think you mean Maine. AFAIK, New Hampshire is winner take all.



Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.


I think we ought to trash the Electoral College entirely, and replace it
with the winner of the popular vote winning the election.

I think we should actually follow the Constitution.

There is no right to vote for President. Indeed, the Constitution specifies
that the LEGISLATURE of each state shall select a Slate of Electors.

How they do that selection is up to them. States should be free (and are,
under the Constitution) to select electors themselves without a popular
election.

While we're at it we have this little problem with the 17th Amendment too.

That one is THE reason that the federal government can "cram" programs down
the state's throats, and force them to pay for it. Prior to that such
efforts were simply impossible to carry off.

The founders had nearly everything right.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

I'll be working with a group of nice fellas who will be visiting the
approaches to certain polling places to ensure that Republican thugs are
not intimidating minority voters. If we come across any GOP voter
intimidators, we'll help them make other plans for the day.

Is anyone else curious how these nice people will make sure they have other
plans for the day? Maybe I am reading more into this than I should, but it
sounds like a not so subtle threat of violence.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I think we ought to trash the Electoral College entirely, and replace it
with the winner of the popular vote winning the election.

Sounds like Harry is smarter than the framers of the constitution, who
believed it was important for the large states not to completely overpower
the will of the smaller states. The EC was a way to make sure all voters
both in the populated areas and the rural areas would be heard. But if
Harry really wants to make a change in the US Constitution you would think
he would be smart enough to know posting his preferences in rec.boats is not
an effective way to get a constitutional amendment ratified.

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know. An item on MSNBC
showed a better (no pun intended, but I'll take credit anyway)
indicator: since 1936, 17 elections in a row, this will be the 18th,
the last game before the elections that the Washington Redskins play
has "predicted" the outcome in that if the Redskins win , the
incumbent wins, if the Redskins lose, the challenger wins. They play
the Packers today at 1 pm. It's predicted the Packers(3-4) by 2 over
the Redskins(2-4). We don't have any of those Cheesehead hats so the
wife and I are going to cover our heads with slices of American cheese
and root for the favorites.

You missed the part of the broadcast where they said the professional
bettor's had it Bush 63% and Kerry 37%.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jon Smithe wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

I'll be working with a group of nice fellas who will be visiting the
approaches to certain polling places to ensure that Republican thugs are
not intimidating minority voters. If we come across any GOP voter
intimidators, we'll help them make other plans for the day.

Is anyone else curious how these nice people will make sure they have
other
plans for the day? Maybe I am reading more into this than I should, but
it
sounds like a not so subtle threat of violence.



Nothing subtle about it. If we find you interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

The only people outside of my polling place has been the liberal type that
ask me if I need a voter guide. Sometimes, I respond that I would like one
of their guides so I know not to vote for their favored candidates.

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

I think you mean Maine. AFAIK, New Hampshire is winner take all.



Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.


I think we ought to trash the Electoral College entirely, and replace it
with the winner of the popular vote winning the election.

I think we should actually follow the Constitution.


I think we should change the Constitution and do away with the EC.


There is no right to vote for President.

Sell your tired out conservatism somewhere else, eh? Times change, and
the people want to elect their president directly...and they should be
able to do so.

Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

This was attempted immediately after the 2000 elections, and went absolutely
nowhere.

For good reason too - it would make less-populous states completely
irrelavent in the election of the President. The framers designed the
Electoral College PRECISELY to overrepresent small population states
PRECISELY so they were not made irrelavent.

Hawaii, as an example from the current election cycle.

Until you can muster the PROPER way to change this you will live by what is
already in the Constitution, or you may take up residence somewhere more
to your liking.

I suggest North Korea.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jon Smithe wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:

I'll be working with a group of nice fellas who will be visiting the
approaches to certain polling places to ensure that Republican thugs
are
not intimidating minority voters. If we come across any GOP voter
intimidators, we'll help them make other plans for the day.

Is anyone else curious how these nice people will make sure they have
other
plans for the day? Maybe I am reading more into this than I should,
but
it
sounds like a not so subtle threat of violence.



Nothing subtle about it. If we find you interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

The only people outside of my polling place has been the liberal type
that
ask me if I need a voter guide. Sometimes, I respond that I would like
one
of their guides so I know not to vote for their favored candidates.



We're not talking about the folks you find right outside the polls
asking if you'd like help. We're talking about the folks who block off
roads leading to the polls, or hand out flyers a few blocks away saying
the polling place has moved, or harass minority voters in some way.

The only time I've heard of this happening is by Democrats turning away
Republicans at the voting precinct door.

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

I think we are moving in that direction. There's no reason not to do so.

I don't.

There are plenty of reasons not to do so. The reasons can be found in
places like The Federalist, to start.

There was a real concern that allowing direct presidential elections would
be disasterous. There was also a real concern that allowing direct
SENATORIAL elections would likewise be disasterous.

We now have nearly 100 years of a record on the latter, in the form of the
outrageous expansion of federalism since the 17th Amendment was passed.

This has been an unmitigated disaster for State and Individual rights.

The movement needed is towards repealing the 17th Amendment, not passing a
new one to get rid of the EC.

This was attempted immediately after the 2000 elections, and went absolutely
nowhere.

For good reason too - it would make less-populous states completely
irrelavent in the election of the President. The framers designed the
Electoral College PRECISELY to overrepresent small population states
PRECISELY so they were not made irrelavent.

Hawaii, as an example from the current election cycle.

Until you can muster the PROPER way to change this you will live by what is
already in the Constitution, or you may take up residence somewhere more
to your liking.

I suggest North Korea.

Typical right-wing wingnut. Really. It's prefectly reasonable to argue
for the end of the EC, and to work for the change.

Exactly why do you think this is reasonable, given the record in the nation
since the 17th Amendment, and the clear violations of the Constitution that
have been passed and embraced by the federal government since.

List bascially ALL federal social programs, and you find that they're
unsupportable in the Constitution. Essentially NONE of them would have
passed without the 17th Amendment, as that was proof against states having
programs rammed down their throats.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Sell your tired out conservatism somewhere else, eh? Times change, and
the people want to elect their president directly...and they should be
able to do so.

Do you understand how easy it is to change if the people want it to be
changed?

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Typical right-wing wingnut. Really. It's prefectly reasonable to argue
for the end of the EC, and to work for the change.

OK, now the time to stop talking and actually do something to change it.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2ulakgF297hv3U3@uni- Nothing subtle about it. If we find you
interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

I must live in the wrong neighborhood, I have never seen anyone stopping
anyone from voting. If they did, I or any intelligent person would just
call the cops, no matter who they were trying to stop. Are the majority of
people in these precincts so dumb they don't realize no one can stop anyone
from going to the precincts? In these neighborhoods do the people have such
withered up balls, that they need a bunch of old farts like you to protect
them, or is this just another one of your "Lobster Boat" stories.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
We're not talking about the folks you find right outside the polls
asking if you'd like help. We're talking about the folks who block off
roads leading to the polls, or hand out flyers a few blocks away saying
the polling place has moved, or harass minority voters in some way.

Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:56:27 GMT, "Jon Smithe" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
We're not talking about the folks you find right outside the polls
asking if you'd like help. We're talking about the folks who block off
roads leading to the polls, or hand out flyers a few blocks away saying
the polling place has moved, or harass minority voters in some way.

Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?


It's called a pre-emptive strike. Straight from the democratic playbook.
Make it sound like there is a problem even if there isn't.

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor Bush.

Sell your tired out conservatism somewhere else, eh? Times change, and
the people want to elect their president directly...and they should be
able to do so.

Do you understand how easy it is to change if the people want it to be
changed?


The problem with doing away with the electoral college is that we would then
have something we don't have right now: a federal election.

We will have 50 separate state elections on Tuesday. Each state will "advise"
its electors whether to vote for Kerry or Bush- but the electors aren't
actually bound to vote in concert with the popular vote in their state. (In
reality, they do reflect their state's popular vote 99.9% of the time).

If we have a federal election, we will have to have national voting
registration standards and procedures to comply with the "equal protection"
principles.

I don't think the majority of Americans are ready to give up local control of
registration and polling to the federal government. When a contry is polarized,
as we are now, and when an administration is as brazenly partisan as the one we
have now....(whether democrat or republican)...dissenting voters would feel
more confident that their votes are actually being counted if they are counted
at the local level.

The federal government does not recognize the popular vote because there is no
federal election. The electoral college provides a means by which the federal
government can combine the results of 50 separate state-wide elections and
calculate a result. It was never intended to reflect the combined, national,
popular vote.

Let's hope that if Bush rides in with a minority of the vote yet again that he
won't interpret that as a "madate" to take the country even farther to the
right than he already has. Same with Kerry. If he gets in with a slim or no
pop-vote majority, he needs to remember on Inauguration Day that about half the
country hates his guts, and he has some work to do.

Let's hope the next president concentrates on uniting the country instead of
solidifying his "base".

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

I think we are moving in that direction. There's no reason not to do so.

I don't.

There are plenty of reasons not to do so. The reasons can be found in
places like The Federalist, to start.

There was a real concern that allowing direct presidential elections would
be disasterous. There was also a real concern that allowing direct
SENATORIAL elections would likewise be disasterous.

Yeah, well, there have been lots of concerns the last several hundred
years. Some panned out, some did not.

We now have nearly 100 years of a record on the latter, in the form of the
outrageous expansion of federalism since the 17th Amendment was passed.

Most Americans are satisfied to vote directly for their Senators.

Those who have discovered they can vote themselves a paycheck are often
satisfied with being able to do so.

This does not mean that their satisfaction is well-founded, for if one
destablizes the underlying strength of the republic, there will be nothing
to be satisfied with.

I'll
bet you also oppose women's suffrage, right?

The two issues are completely unrelated, and this gratuitous slam is so much
like you Harry. Why is it you're unable to debate a topic put forward on
the table for consideration, and must instead resort to personal attacks?

The issue is one of the federal government being able to unlawfully (under
the Constitution) to "cram" programs and funding mandates down the state's
throats without their consent.

This was IMPOSSIBLE before the 17th Amendment. Evidence of its effectiveness
is found in the almost complete lack of such laws passed during the first 125
years of our nation's history.

Evidence of the horrific change since then is found in all the programs
crammed down the states' throats SINCE the passage of the 17th Amendment.

The list of such "cramming" involvement since is simply too huge to even
begin to list.

This has been an unmitigated disaster for State and Individual rights.

Sorry, I'm not a fan of state's rights.

Nor individual rights either, I see.

The entire purpose of having two legislative houses is found in the writings
of the founding fathers. They were designed to represented entirely
DIFFERENT constituencies, such that before any federal law could be passed,
or any amendment to the constitution could be passed, that it must first
make it through TWO constituenties, not one.

The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE - individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.

The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES - via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.

I am quite sure you remember the founding principle "no taxation without
representation", upon which this nation rested her founding. Indeed, were
it not for the belief that such a principle was inherently necessary
to a just government, the United States would not exist.

Taxation can come in many forms - direct confiscation of money is not the
only way. Indirect confiscation through compulsory spending is yet another
way to effect a tax. Nobody would argue this with more than two firing
neurons - if you were to suddenly find that every road out of your
subdivision was a toll road, you would certainly consider that a tax.

The US bicameral legislature was designed SPECIFICALLY to insure that the
two places that rights are reserved to in the Constitution - the states,
and the people - are BOTH represented in the federal government in a means
that apportions their rights according to population. Each state had an
equal voice in the Senate, and each person had an equal voice in the House.

Passage of the 17th Amendment removed the States ability to be represented
in the Federal Government - and the consequence of this was PRECISELY WHAT
HAPPENED IN THE COLONIES PRIOR TO 1776! By removing the State's ability to
sit at the federal law-making table, it was GUARANTEED that the States
would be taxed without their ability to stop it - and indeed, that is
exactly what happened.

What was not clearly understood at the time, and it is most unfortunate, is
that the 17th Amendment is the one which is likely impossible to repeal.
The reason, of course, is that the Senate would have to vote themselves out
of a job - which is hardly likely.

Unlike every other Constitutional Amendment, the 17th Amendment creates a
"super class" of persons who would have to vote to remove themselves in
order to reverse its effect. For this reason it was the "poison pill" with
regards to the organization of our form of government as originally
envisioned - and the inexorable effect has been clearly seen since,
continuing to this day.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:56:27 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:


Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?

I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history. Perhaps, you and I might
not find some of the following intimidating. That's not important. What
is important, is that many voters do.

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBNT3H8X0E.html

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368

http://www.sundayherald.com/45159

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6031311/

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...7864136340.xml

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry
wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor Bush.




The only poll that matters will be held Tuesday. What's left of my gut
tells me that Kerry is going to do very, very well in the Electoral
College and might achieve the Magic 300 number. I haven't a clue where
the popular vote will be. But if Kerry wins the EC and Bush takes the
popular vote, I'll be especially delighted...because that means the
Republicans will be calling for abolishing the Electoral College.
Delicious.

I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state (the
way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:04:28 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:56:27 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:


Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?

I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history. Perhaps, you and I might
not find some of the following intimidating. That's not important. What
is important, is that many voters do.

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBNT3H8X0E.html

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368

http://www.sundayherald.com/45159

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6031311/

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...7864136340.xml

And the many extra voters we have here in Ohio, notably more registered
voters in four counties than those old enough to vote deserve to be
challenged. Is that intimidation or just being fair, one man (woman) = one
vote.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:12:36 -0500, John S wrote:


And the many extra voters we have here in Ohio, notably more registered
voters in four counties than those old enough to vote deserve to be
challenged. Is that intimidation or just being fair, one man (woman) = one
vote.

That question isn't that simple. Truly, it is one person = one vote. No
one should have a problem with that, but how do you challenge? I can
easily see, how a challenger in a minority neighborhood could become
obstructionist, challenging legitimate voters and causing long lines.
Personally, the 2000 election showed how flawed our election system is.
Our leadership has had four years to fix it. That we are facing many of
the same issues as in 2000, shows the ineptness of our leadership. A pox
on *both* parties and, in a democracy, we get the leadership we deserve.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 01:10:33 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:12:36 -0500, John S wrote:


And the many extra voters we have here in Ohio, notably more registered
voters in four counties than those old enough to vote deserve to be
challenged. Is that intimidation or just being fair, one man (woman) = one
vote.

That question isn't that simple. Truly, it is one person = one vote. No
one should have a problem with that, but how do you challenge? I can
easily see, how a challenger in a minority neighborhood could become
obstructionist, challenging legitimate voters and causing long lines.
Personally, the 2000 election showed how flawed our election system is.
Our leadership has had four years to fix it. That we are facing many of
the same issues as in 2000, shows the ineptness of our leadership. A pox
on *both* parties and, in a democracy, we get the leadership we deserve.

I do have to agree. At least where I vote, we have very reliable machines.
Unfortunately it is left up to the states and ultimately the state counties
to determine how much they wish to spend on voting equipment. It is up to
the voters to elect county commissioners that will spend the money for
decent machines. Sometimes other things priority. I consider myself
fortunate.

Nonetheless, I have voted on paper ballots, the old mechanical monsters, and
the newest electronic machines. I never had any problems. I have lived in a
number of different places and states in my career and never had an
unpleasant experience when I went to vote. Of course, I followed the rules,
knew where to go, located my precinct, etc. I educated myself on the voting
process. It is really quite simple.

My father in law (God rest his soul) had to have my mother in law help him
when they removed the "Vote all Democratic" button from the machine and he
had to vote on an individual basis. The poll workers were always kind enough
to let her in the booth with him.

I hope this election goes smooth and whoever wins will be accepted by all as
our President.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Karl Denninger wrote:

The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the
several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE -
individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.

The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES -
via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage
of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.

As I stated previously, I think states rights are so much bull****.

Meaning Krause, and his ilk, will have a very hard time installing their
socialist utopia if they have to fight the states on an individual basis.
Remove the states from the equation and move to elect the president from
direct popular election and the Democrats can take over the US just like
Hitler took over Germany with a bloodless coupe.

"Jon Smithe" wrote in message
news:Axhhd.446839$mD.64664@attbi_s02...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news:2ulakgF297hv3U3@uni- Nothing subtle about it. If we find you
interfering with folks on the
way to the polls, we'll ask you to move on. You'll have a choice at that
point. We're not talking about what happens inside the polling
place...but on the approaches... In other words, if you stop minority
voters heading to the polls and try to discourage them, we'll discourage
you.

I must live in the wrong neighborhood, I have never seen anyone stopping
anyone from voting. If they did, I or any intelligent person would just
call the cops, no matter who they were trying to stop. Are the majority
of people in these precincts so dumb they don't realize no one can stop
anyone from going to the precincts? In these neighborhoods do the people
have such withered up balls, that they need a bunch of old farts like you
to protect them, or is this just another one of your "Lobster Boat"
stories.




Me thinks the latter. ;-)

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Harry Krause" piedtypecase@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Sam" wrote in message
om...
I heard on public radio that the surest prediction of political races
is where the bettors are putting their money, they then proceeded to
say that that, too, is split so they didn't know.

That's not true. A $1 bet on Bush wins you $1.65. A $1 bet on Kerry
wins
you $2. A $1 bet on Nader wins you $1001. The betting odds favor Bush.




The only poll that matters will be held Tuesday. What's left of my gut
tells me that Kerry is going to do very, very well in the Electoral
College and might achieve the Magic 300 number. I haven't a clue where
the popular vote will be. But if Kerry wins the EC and Bush takes the
popular vote, I'll be especially delighted...because that means the
Republicans will be calling for abolishing the Electoral College.
Delicious.

I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state (the
way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.

Too bad your predictions don't mean crap, huh?

Thunder,

Thanks for the links, and you are correct, nothing I read would have
intimidated me or most voters, including most legitimate black voters. I do
not believe anyone should use illegal means to discourage voters, but it
does make sense to have party loyalist there to make sure all voter
challenges are handled legally. If people understand the procedures, I
don't believe anyone who has a legal right to vote will be intimidated by
voter challenges. If a party loyalists see anyone using illegal methods to
chase away voters, they should immediately contact the poll workers or the
police to stop this activity immediately, but for Harry to suggest he will
use force to stop someone whom they think is not acting in a legal manner is
nothing more than anarchy.

It is important to make sure that each vote and voter is legitimate. If
not, both parties will just follow that age old rule of "vote early and vote
often".

I noticed that Dems in Florida are objecting to voter challenges of voters
whose mail was returned as "undeliverable". To be able to vote, these
voters need to sign an affidavit that they are legally entitled to vote. I
for one think it would be a great idea to require everyone to sign such an
affidavit or provide ID to verify the voter is whom he states he is, but it
does not see unreasonable to request people whose mail is returned as
undeliverable to verify who they are..

The use of party loyalist who volunteer to work at the polling places is
used by both parties to insure that each vote is legitimate.

There seems to be a move to set up national standards to insure all voters
are legitimate and was to handle voter challenges. This seems very
reasonable and I would support the use of a fair national standard.


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:56:27 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:


Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?

I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history. Perhaps, you and I might
not find some of the following intimidating. That's not important. What
is important, is that many voters do.

http://www.tampatrib.com/MGBNT3H8X0E.html

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=16368

http://www.sundayherald.com/45159

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Aug25.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6031311/

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/orego...7864136340.xml

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:
Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.

I think we are moving in that direction. There's no reason not to do so.

I don't.

There are plenty of reasons not to do so. The reasons can be found in
places like The Federalist, to start.

There was a real concern that allowing direct presidential elections would
be disasterous. There was also a real concern that allowing direct
SENATORIAL elections would likewise be disasterous.

Yeah, well, there have been lots of concerns the last several hundred
years. Some panned out, some did not.

We now have nearly 100 years of a record on the latter, in the form of the
outrageous expansion of federalism since the 17th Amendment was passed.

Most Americans are satisfied to vote directly for their Senators.

Those who have discovered they can vote themselves a paycheck are often
satisfied with being able to do so.

Spurious argument. There's no problem with direct election of US
Senators, other than in your mind it prevents typically more
conservative state legislatures from turning the Senate into a
right-wing viper pit.

Certainly there is, in that it has removed one of the checks and balances
that the founders intended - that the State Legislatures be represented at
the Federal Lawmaking table.

The removal of a check and balance is ipso-facto proof of a "problem".

This does not mean that their satisfaction is well-founded, for if one
destablizes the underlying strength of the republic, there will be nothing
to be satisfied with.

There's no evidence that direct election of Senators has destabilized
the republic.

On the contrary. The entire folly of the Federal Government intruding into
State economic matters, and the growth of the entitlement state, currently
consuming over half of the Federal Budget, is traceable directly to the 17th
Amendment.

Without the 17th Amendment none of the "Great Society" package would have
passed. If it HAD passed, the Democratic rape of the budget via the removal
of the four promises made to people when Social Security was implemented
would have failed - specifically:
a. That the tax would never exceed 1.5% of the first $1,500 of gross
wages.
b. That the system would remain COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.
c. That the money collected would NEVER be co-mingled with other
parts of the Treasury.
d. That the benefits paid would NEVER be federally taxed.

The Democratic Party broke all four of the above promisesl; Clinton, in
fact, was responsible for (d), and he was ready to propose an even bigger
rape of retirement accounts in the form of a 15% one-time tax on ALL
tax-deferred retirement instruments (which you have conveniently ducked
discussing when I've raised it before - I have no intention of letting you
get away with that Harry.)

I'll
bet you also oppose women's suffrage, right?

The two issues are completely unrelated, and this gratuitous slam is so much
like you Harry. Why is it you're unable to debate a topic put forward on
the table for consideration, and must instead resort to personal attacks?

So, you do oppose the vote for women. I'll bet you also oppose it for
those without some sort of wealth, right, Karl?

I have said no such thing; all CITIZENS of the age of 18 years should have
the right to exactly one vote on matters in which they have a Constitutional
Right to vote.

This does not, by the way, NECESSARILY include voting for President of the
United States - whether that right exists in a given state (to vote for the
electors in a given state) is a STATE'S RIGHT ISSUE.

The issue is one of the federal government being able to unlawfully (under
the Constitution) to "cram" programs and funding mandates down the state's
throats without their consent.

Ahhh...so you think states should be able to maintain "separate but
equal," eh?

Excuse me?

There is nothing in any of my statements, here or elsewhere, that supports
such a preposterous idea.

The entire purpose of having two legislative houses is found in the writings
of the founding fathers. They were designed to represented entirely
DIFFERENT constituencies, such that before any federal law could be passed,
or any amendment to the constitution could be passed, that it must first
make it through TWO constituenties, not one.

Times change, society evolves, and we either move forward or we stagnate.

There are TWO constituencies Harry.

I know you have no respect for State's Rights (you've said so), but the fact
of the matter is that the founding vision of this nation is one of a WEAK
federal government and a strong state and local one.

The Federal Government was intended to guarantee only fundamental liberty
interests, regulate interstate and international trade, and provide for the
defense of the nation.

This is all covered in every High School civics class - if you passed.

The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE - individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.

The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES - via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.

As I stated previously, I think states rights are so much bull****.

Then why not dissolve the States entirely?

Why should a State submit to being taxed (or forced to spend a given amount
of money - same thing) without the ability to sit at the legislative table
(be represented)?

Your argument is for the dissolution of the States entirely.

Or is it?

Harry, do you support the dissolution of States entirely?

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article ,
thunder wrote:


On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 02:56:27 +0000, Jon Smithe wrote:


Can you point me to one story or link where this has been reported to a
problem? Or is this a problem being hidden by a rightwing conspiracy?

I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history.

And lots of people, minority or not, are nervous around law enforcement
because they are (or were) breaking the law but have not been caught.

This is not a racial issue.

There is no issue at all with having law enforcement present near or even at
polling places for the purpose of keeping the peace. Since the Democrats
have looted, shot at and broken into Republican campaign offices this
season, it appears that such a presence may be necessary to prevent such
antics from being used on election day in the precincts themselves.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article ,
thunder wrote:


On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 00:12:36 -0500, John S wrote:


And the many extra voters we have here in Ohio, notably more registered
voters in four counties than those old enough to vote deserve to be
challenged. Is that intimidation or just being fair, one man (woman) = one
vote.

That question isn't that simple. Truly, it is one person = one vote. No
one should have a problem with that, but how do you challenge? I can
easily see, how a challenger in a minority neighborhood could become
obstructionist, challenging legitimate voters and causing long lines.

Why is it only in a "minority" neighborhood where such challenges would
cause long lines?

And what's wrong with long lines? People waited 4+ hours to vote early.
This obviously wasn't a problem, so why is it suddenly a problem if you have
to wait in line to vote Tuesday because your precinct has more people
registered than you have living in the precinct?

I see no problem with requiring people to produce positive identification in
order to vote which shows that they live in the precinct that they are
showing up at.

This requirement would pevent multiple votes from being cast by one person
and is a very reasonable check and balance on the process.

I am asked for my D/L every time I go to vote. I can refuse and instead
swear out of affidavit, but I don't see why its a big deal to just produce
the ID instead. That request is a valid check and balance preventing me
from registering in more than one state and/or county in order to be able
to vote more than once, and I see no problem with it.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article w8rhd.341247$3l3.41959@attbi_s03, Jon Smithe wrote:


Thunder,

Thanks for the links, and you are correct, nothing I read would have
intimidated me or most voters, including most legitimate black voters. I do
not believe anyone should use illegal means to discourage voters, but it
does make sense to have party loyalist there to make sure all voter
challenges are handled legally. If people understand the procedures, I
don't believe anyone who has a legal right to vote will be intimidated by
voter challenges. If a party loyalists see anyone using illegal methods to
chase away voters, they should immediately contact the poll workers or the
police to stop this activity immediately, but for Harry to suggest he will
use force to stop someone whom they think is not acting in a legal manner is
nothing more than anarchy.

It is important to make sure that each vote and voter is legitimate. If
not, both parties will just follow that age old rule of "vote early and vote
often".

I noticed that Dems in Florida are objecting to voter challenges of voters
whose mail was returned as "undeliverable". To be able to vote, these
voters need to sign an affidavit that they are legally entitled to vote. I
for one think it would be a great idea to require everyone to sign such an
affidavit or provide ID to verify the voter is whom he states he is, but it
does not see unreasonable to request people whose mail is returned as
undeliverable to verify who they are..

The use of party loyalist who volunteer to work at the polling places is
used by both parties to insure that each vote is legitimate.

There seems to be a move to set up national standards to insure all voters
are legitimate and was to handle voter challenges. This seems very
reasonable and I would support the use of a fair national standard.

You should have to produce proof that you reside within the percinct that
you are attempting to vote at.

Period.

This, along with a voting book (currently kept for all precincts) prevents
voting more than once.

If you then correlate on a national level all absentee ballot requests
and insure that the requestor of same is struck from the precinct roll
for that election, then you prevent double voting via the absentee system
as well.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:


Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:

As I stated previously, I think states rights are so much bull****.

Then why not dissolve the States entirely?

Why should a State submit to being taxed (or forced to spend a given amount
of money - same thing) without the ability to sit at the legislative table
(be represented)?

Your argument is for the dissolution of the States entirely.

Or is it?

Harry, do you support the dissolution of States entirely?

--

Not at all.

Ah, so instead you support the ability of the Federal Government to impose
costs (that is, tax) a constitutency that has no representation at the
legislative table.

That would be called "fraud" by the founding fathers, and IMHO we should
continue to call it "fraud" - because it is.

Thanks for making your position clear.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:13:49 -0500, NOYB wrote:


I think the Electoral College should allow split votes from each state
(the way NH does it). Nevertheless, I predict:

I think you mean Maine.

Correct. I thought that it was Maine, but when I asked a patient of mine
from Maine if they split their votes, she said no. What does she no though?
She came down her to vote. She voted Bush, and her husband voted Kerry. I
can't figure out why they took the trip down here 3 weeks early just to vote
when they effectively cancelled out each other's vote.





AFAIK, New Hampshire is winner take all.



Bush: 301
Kerry: 237

Bush by 4-5 points in the popular vote.


I think we ought to trash the Electoral College entirely, and replace it
with the winner of the popular vote winning the election. The
Republicans are playing too many games trying to disenfranchise voters
in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and many other states, tactics which
play up the fallacies of the EC system.

I'll be working with a group of nice fellas who will be visiting the
approaches to certain polling places to ensure that Republican thugs are
not intimidating minority voters. If we come across any GOP voter
intimidators, we'll help them make other plans for the day. Anyone who
wants to get to a polling place should be able to do that without
interference. It's up to polling place workers to decide who is eligible
at that precinct, not a bunch of GOP guys in suits.

--
Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument
for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the
American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions
without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your
Commander-in-Chief."

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:11:01 +0000, Karl Denninger wrote:


I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history.

And lots of people, minority or not, are nervous around law enforcement
because they are (or were) breaking the law but have not been caught.

This is not a racial issue.

It damn sure can be. There are neighborhoods that do not see law
enforcement as protecting, they see it as oppressing. There are
neighborhoods whose elders remember poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and cracker
cops with dogs.



There is no issue at all with having law enforcement present near or even
at polling places for the purpose of keeping the peace. Since the
Democrats have looted, shot at and broken into Republican campaign offices
this season, it appears that such a presence may be necessary to prevent
such antics from being used on election day in the precincts themselves.

Because you have no issue with it, doesn't mean there is no issue. Why
stop with cops? Why not have tanks and soldiers guarding our polling
places like the rest of the third world?

Karl,
It is surprising how many states do not require ID of those who are voting.
Anyone can vote for anyone they know is on the voter registration lists,
without showing any proof. Which is why in some districts the dead are
regular voters. It could also results in people showing up to vote, and
they find someone else has already voted for them. The place I vote has
always asked for ID, and I have never felt intimated. They must be asking
me for my ID because I have olive complexion. ; )


The only reason I can see why someone would not want voters to provide ID or
sign an affidavit is because it would upset their current method of using
voter fraud.


"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
news:0Crhd.1110$ep3.503@lakeread02...

In article w8rhd.341247$3l3.41959@attbi_s03, Jon Smithe
wrote:


Thunder,

Thanks for the links, and you are correct, nothing I read would have
intimidated me or most voters, including most legitimate black voters. I
do
not believe anyone should use illegal means to discourage voters, but it
does make sense to have party loyalist there to make sure all voter
challenges are handled legally. If people understand the procedures, I
don't believe anyone who has a legal right to vote will be intimidated by
voter challenges. If a party loyalists see anyone using illegal methods
to
chase away voters, they should immediately contact the poll workers or the
police to stop this activity immediately, but for Harry to suggest he will
use force to stop someone whom they think is not acting in a legal manner
is
nothing more than anarchy.

It is important to make sure that each vote and voter is legitimate. If
not, both parties will just follow that age old rule of "vote early and
vote
often".

I noticed that Dems in Florida are objecting to voter challenges of voters
whose mail was returned as "undeliverable". To be able to vote, these
voters need to sign an affidavit that they are legally entitled to vote.
I
for one think it would be a great idea to require everyone to sign such an
affidavit or provide ID to verify the voter is whom he states he is, but
it
does not see unreasonable to request people whose mail is returned as
undeliverable to verify who they are..

The use of party loyalist who volunteer to work at the polling places is
used by both parties to insure that each vote is legitimate.

There seems to be a move to set up national standards to insure all voters
are legitimate and was to handle voter challenges. This seems very
reasonable and I would support the use of a fair national standard.

You should have to produce proof that you reside within the percinct that
you are attempting to vote at.

Period.

This, along with a voting book (currently kept for all precincts) prevents
voting more than once.

If you then correlate on a national level all absentee ballot requests
and insure that the requestor of same is struck from the precinct roll
for that election, then you prevent double voting via the absentee system
as well.

--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights
Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:15:34 +0000, Karl Denninger wrote:


Why is it only in a "minority" neighborhood where such challenges would
cause long lines?

You are asking the wrong person. You should be asking the RNC. They are
the ones targeting minority neighborhoods in Ohio and elsewhere.


And what's wrong with long lines? People waited 4+ hours to vote early.
This obviously wasn't a problem, so why is it suddenly a problem if you
have to wait in line to vote Tuesday because your precinct has more people
registered than you have living in the precinct?

I see no problem with requiring people to produce positive identification
in order to vote which shows that they live in the precinct that they are
showing up at.

This requirement would pevent multiple votes from being cast by one person
and is a very reasonable check and balance on the process.

I am asked for my D/L every time I go to vote. I can refuse and instead
swear out of affidavit, but I don't see why its a big deal to just produce
the ID instead. That request is a valid check and balance preventing me
from registering in more than one state and/or county in order to be able
to vote more than once, and I see no problem with it.

--

"Karl Denninger" wrote in message
news:ayrhd.1109$ep3.480@lakeread02...

I am asked for my D/L every time I go to vote. I can refuse and instead
swear out of affidavit, but I don't see why its a big deal to just produce
the ID instead. That request is a valid check and balance preventing me
from registering in more than one state and/or county in order to be able
to vote more than once, and I see no problem with it.

If you have been able to successfully get people to vote early and often in
key districts, asking for ID will have a negative impact on the vote. Which
is why Harry is concerned about asking voters for ID.
While Harry will probably not leave his keyboard on election day, I would
love to read about a fat old man in Maryland threatening people legally
campaigning on election day. Maybe he can run them over with his truck.
; )

Thunder,
What do you think would be an effective way to make sure only legitimate
voters are able to vote and they are only able to vote once?


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 14:11:01 +0000, Karl Denninger wrote:


I'm won't say voter intimidation is widespread, but to say it doesn't
happen is BS. It's important to note, that many minorities are nervous
around law enforcement due to Jim Crow history.

And lots of people, minority or not, are nervous around law enforcement
because they are (or were) breaking the law but have not been caught.

This is not a racial issue.

It damn sure can be. There are neighborhoods that do not see law
enforcement as protecting, they see it as oppressing. There are
neighborhoods whose elders remember poll taxes, Jim Crow laws, and cracker
cops with dogs.



There is no issue at all with having law enforcement present near or even
at polling places for the purpose of keeping the peace. Since the
Democrats have looted, shot at and broken into Republican campaign
offices
this season, it appears that such a presence may be necessary to prevent
such antics from being used on election day in the precincts themselves.

Because you have no issue with it, doesn't mean there is no issue. Why
stop with cops? Why not have tanks and soldiers guarding our polling
places like the rest of the third world?