Voter fraud

3 ratings since posting on Saturday, December 22, 2007
Voter fraud
in Pittsburgh
website
(submitted by offlineCelestine )

Overall Rating

****o

based on 3 ratings
Rate It
Advertisement
Sort reviews by: Newest  |  Rating  |  Connections
Advertisement
Jeffrey
Jeffrey
offline 208
****o
Most of us know this already but it's nice to see it again
The fact is that Al Gore was elected in 2000 both by the popular vote and as was discovered several months later with enough electoral votes, but by that time the point was moot because GW Bush had already been inaugurated. The Supreme Court made the decision to stop counting the votes in Florida with the goal of deciding the winner, but the votes were eventually counted as promised and reported in ,for one, The New York Times (buried in the back of the paper) that Al Gore had actually won the State of Florida.
While a point on this rating list was made, that there is representation so therefore no violation of the US Constitution is present, it is pretty clear that there have been discrepancies in the election process, and yes, I am certain that these things have happened to a degree in the past as the previous writer was quick to point out the problems in Chicago in the 1960 election of JFK; but does that excuse the blatant violations that have continued in the 2000, 2002,2004 and 2006 elections? Does it excuse the CEO of DeBolt standing at the Republican National Convention and promising that the winning votes would be delivered for GW Bush? The ability of the computer voting system to be hacked was proven on National Television when Howard Dean used access codes provided to him by a whistle-blower to hack into the machines undetected to prove a point on the need for change. The people have been shown but there is no change. I think it IS time for "We the people" to stand up and demand that our voices be heard. I think that "We the people" have been ignored for too long by the very people that want our votes and support at election time and then choose to ignore us the rest of the time.
If you like being treated like sheep or if you "drank the Kool-aid" or if you are benefitting from the outcome of our "current leaders" agenda, then you can dismiss my words as the words of a "kook" or a "conspiracy theorist" but then you're just going to have to find a way to fudge the facts to fit your agenda. It shouldn't be hard to do, it's been done before, just read the "Downing Street Memo". - Jeffrey , posted 01/05/08
Spir...
SpiritFlame
offline 65
*oooo
Lots of Smoke and Noise... Little Substance
You appear to misunderstand the nature of representative democracy as put forth in the United States Constitution. This document describes a framework for a democratic republic in which “the governed” do *not* have direct power, but are represented through a group of officials that they, the governed, either directly or indirectly elect to office. This framework is carefully constructed to contain a rather complex set of checks and balances on all involved – both the governing and the governed.

One of the great fears of the founders was what they saw as the “passions of the masses”. As a result the constitution sets up a number of checks against direct control of the governed. The establishment of a semi-independent judiciary was seen as a way for legislation to be reviewed by legal scholars who could not easily be swayed by popular passions. In addition, the term of Senators was set to six years so that they too would not be “too responsive” to the governed. However, in order to ensure that that the voice of the governed was heard, the term of Congressmen was set to only two years.

I see no evidence that “the people” are not being represented as envisioned by the United States Constitution. I would agree that there have been incidents of tampering through out the history of the republic. Certainly the election that handed George W. Bush his first term has some suspicious irregularities. However, in the 1960 election of John Kennedy, there were seriously irregularities in the precincts around Chicago where, “the dead” voted “early and often”

Such irregularities, however, have been effective *only* because of deep splits within the voting public. They have been able to tip the result in situations where elections were so close that a bit of well placed voter fraud could affect the outcome. Unfortunately it is within the nature of humanity to cheat on occasion. It is not a good thing, but overall our system and nation have done better in this regard than most or perhaps all others in history.

The title of this review is “Voter Fraud. This is a serious charge, but I see no evidence presented here to back up this charge. If you have strong evidence, I would encourage that you post it here. However, there are faults in all systems as we are all human. So… unless you have evidence of fraud on a massive scale, I am inclined to stick with the current system, even with all its faults, because I think it works, and has worked, pretty well. - SpiritFlame , posted 01/05/08
Cele...
Celestine
online 134
*****
When are we going to take back whats ours
The law belongs to the people. We are the democracy. Not the congress, the judges, the police...US. We are the law so sayest the constitution. Inalienable from birth is our right to govern!!! Because we are the people of this government which is for the people and by the people. Take back what is yours. - onlineCelestine , posted 12/22/07

Voter fraud was recommended for:

Share/Save/Bookmark
post to tribe
recommend or request

search local favorites

search

browse

Advertisement