BellGab.com Archive

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 04:02:41 PM
Iow whomever you voted for initially can be removed from the ballot and your vote channeled by algorithm over to someone you did not intend to vote for.

This obfuscation of "one man one vote" is just logistical chaff to you.

https://www.themainewire.com/2016/03/ranked-choice-voting-wrong-maine-blatantly-unconstitutional/

If none of the candidates achieve a majority with more than 50% of the vote, then an instant runoff is triggered. The ballots that were cast for the candidate with the least amount of votes are re-tabulated. Any of the bullet votes are discarded, since they have already been applied to the loser. The loser’s voters that opted to rank their choices will have their ballots pulled and re-tabulated.

This means the ballots of the loser(s) will determine the winner. Some voters, the voters of the loser(s), would get to vote more than once.

In fact ranked voting could potentially enhance 2 party dominance.

http://www.sunjournal.com/what-the-constitution-says-and-doesnt-say-about-ranked-choice-voting/

Poliquin’s lawsuit claims the use of ranked-choice voting violates the U.S. Constitution because the document “sets a plurality vote as the qualification for election” to Congress.

https://www.themainewire.com/2016/03/ranked-choice-voting-wrong-maine-blatantly-unconstitutional/

As A.G. Mills explains, the ranked-choice voting ballot question calls into question Maine’s long-standing law requiring a plurality of votes to determine the winner of state races for governor, state senate, and representatives to the house. RCV would require that both state and federal races be determined by a majority vote rather than a plurality. Rankedâ€"choice voting would trigger an instant runoff vote when a majority of votes is not met.

In plain terms, a plurality of votes means that the person with the most votes wins, while a majority of votes means 50% plus one vote is needed to determine the winner. The distinction between a plurality of votes and a majority of votes becomes important in races with more than two candidates.

The Maine Constitution also requires that ballots be tabulated and counted in local municipalities, but the ranked-choice voting proposal would involve transporting ballots to the Secretary of State’s office for instant runoff tabulations, which not only violates the Maine Constitution, but is also costly and time consuming.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/chrisgeidner/maine-ranked-choice-golden-poliquin-election-results

Here's Why A Democrat Who Didn't Have The Most Votes On Election Day Has Now Won In Maine

Maine's 2nd Congressional District is set to send the first person to the House under a ranked-choice voting system.

On Election Day in Maine, Poliquin was up by 668 votes over Golden out of more than 250,000 votes cast for four candidates. But Poliquin had only received 46.1% of the votes â€" putting the past 10 days' drama into action.

Under the ranked-choice voting process, which is only in use in the US in Maine and some cities elsewhere, voters can rank the candidates for a particular office on their ballot from first to last. On Election Day, the first-rank votes are counted. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, that person is the winner. If no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the person receiving the lowest number of votes is removed from the next round and the people who voted for that person have their second-choice vote counted. If one of the remaining candidates now has a majority of the votes, that person is the winner. If not, the process continues to a next round with the now-lowest vote-getter removed. This continues until a candidate receives a majority of the votes.

On Nov. 7, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap declared that the race would go into ranked-choice voting rounds because no candidate received a majority of the votes cast.

Due to the complexity of the process, the ranked-choice voting rounds are conducted at a central location in Maine, requiring a transfer of ballots, and take extra time.

By the time all votes were counted from the initial round of voting, Poliquin had expanded his lead to 2,001 votes over Golden. Nonetheless, he only extended his plurality to 46.3% â€" meaning the ranked-choice voting rounds would proceed. Golden had received 45.6% of the first-choice votes. The two independent candidates, Tiffany Bond and William Hoar, received 5.7% and 2.4% of the votes, respectively.

With the two lowest vote-getters out â€" apparently due to the fact that the lowest vote-getter only received 2.38% of the first-choice vote, an insufficient percentage to take either candidate over 50% â€" and their second-choice votes added in, Golden was up by 2,905 votes and had received 50.53% of the vote to Poliquin's 49.47%.

Golden â€" despite being down on Election Day â€" would be declared the winner under Maine's law.

A lot of this crap you keep posting about Maine is being pushed through lawsuits backed by a GOP congressman if I’m seeing it right in recent articles. Who would have the most to lose in a third party situation?  It’s the conservative side ready to abandon the RINOs in the Republican Party. The democrats have their own internal strife but I think far less are ready to abandon it. The true believers there are all sprinting to the far left along with the party itself.

The Maine thing is mostly a GOP backed thing because they are terrified of losing power which is their primary concern.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 04:16:56 PM
Don't be peevish son, what chance do you think a vastly smaller party candidate has under ranked voting?

Greater chance than without it from the perspective of long term change and enablement of the voting population to vote their true conscience.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 02:10:14 PM
Back to rewording what I stated again?

The strawman factory never closes with you.



I cited:

1.) The electoral and governance perils of a 3rd party.

2.) My preference that CP adherents work to bring the Rs back to Constitutional fealty.

3.) My belief that should the Rs continue to fail as a party the CP would be my preferred alternative.

Nope.

I stated that I want each person's vote to count as originally cast, that it not be subsumed by a runoff percentage algorithm .

Are you being paid by the strawman?



Non sequitur personal demonization - again!

As did I, if you're honest enough (not) to admit as much. In fact I added that I side with them more often than the LP.

But those black and white facts are just impossible for you to accept - even as they stare you right back in your lying face.

And You have completely and consistently failed to point me to one iota of written data within their party platform that endorses "ranked voting"!

Not ONE!

Yet somehow I am supposed to prove a negative for you when you're too lazty to do your own research?

Madness!

Lunacy!

Get off the personal non sequitur attacks. You spend every bit as much time here as I do.

Nothing with instant runoff voting directly contradicts one man one vote. You get one vote like you always have. It only counts once.  You just get to specify order of preference in how it is cast.

You’re just not reading.

Quote from: Tootsie Wootsy on December 11, 2018, 12:12:11 PM
thank you, Zaza . i am so complimented    and honored    @Zaza

I am bloodied but unbowed 

You’re crazy. I think you might be the first person I’ve ever seen quarantined on a board just because their incessant whining to admins about any little disagreement was too annoying.

Thick skin that is not.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 01:44:41 PM
When you present yourself as member of said party and then begin blathering about a precept they have never endorsed, nor would (ranked voting) the accountabilty game is on, liar!

Another strawman is built!

1.) I did not call the CP "ideologues".

2.) I did cite an essay that delineated how ideologues do tend to infest many 3rd parties.

3.) Being an ideologue isn't per se an "evil thing" but it may be an "intractable thing."

4.) I never once said the "party shouldn't exist"!

That's multiple compound lies in one hefty strawman, which is seemingly your key debate strategy.



I do. You're not the arbiter of what action I take in my private life, cope.

I think that changing your mind is akin to snapping off rusted lug nuts - pointless.

1. ) I never once said the CP "shouldn't be allowed to exist"!

2.) "Parity for ballot access" is presumably "ranked voting" revisited - or have you changed horses in mid stream?



At some point you will I suppose tire of being repeatedly thrashed for blatant strawman argumentation -  as to when I can not say. Clearly you are insensate to humiliation and moreover addicted to inserting your own rhetoric into the arguments of others. As such there is no honesty in you, just none at all.

You said yourself you don’t think we need a third party and continue to parrot the establishment “splitting the vote” bogeyman. 

Are you paid by the word?  If not I hope for my tax dollars sake you get a job soon, preferably one that doesn’t require critical thinking skills or within 300 feet of people.

I stated my opinion and that I generally support the constitution party. You’re the one opining about their platform even though it’s never directly addressed.

Get a grip and more importantly a job.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 01:33:03 PM
Sounds like you have a real desire to CONTROL the flow of information here, be it text or image based.

After getting your ASS handed to you on "ranked voting" i can understand why.

Better go for a Bart ban...oh wait...sorry...wrong group...fascists migrate back to ellgab...

Well you're big on little more than personal insults, so....

I don't use google, but that aside, what kind of simpering slackwit makes outrageous claims and then whines like a crybaby when the facts are shot back at him after multiple rounds of denials and persona demonizations. You are devoid of logic. And your last, well no your ONLY link, is so easily rebutted it's not even worth playing with.

                   Et tu, keybaord warrior regular here?

                      "qui s'excuse s'accuse."

You handed no one anything. You failed to post a single thing from the platform that even has the word “rank” in it.

At no point did I say you should be banned.  You should seek mental help.

You’re a regular statesman.  Anytime someone has their own opinion... DIE IN A FIRE!!

Yes. That screams credibility

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 01:24:12 PM
Are you just massively fucking devoid of reading comprehension?

By no metric must I use their platform to prove a negative, period!

They promote basic sound Constitutional voting definitives, not some lunacy  like "ranked voting".

How many fucking times to I have to rub your nose in reality for you to catch a clue?



Right back to the off-topic personal demonization. And all because your favored party does NOT endorse "ranked voting"!

Right, so citing actual analysis and factual data is bad, but strawmen, personal demonizations, non sequiturs, and content free opinioneering is good?

Funny rectocranial inversion you live in there.



Yet it is precisely that level of projection that renders most 3rd party adherents intractable ideologues. And note how quick you are to fascistically wave away anyone who diverges from your personal spin-take on the Constitution Party. I think you may be a leftard mole.

I still think it’s funny how you want to interject your perceived infallible opinions of another party’s platform into a conversation and then expect anyone to pay any attention to them when you follow it up by criticizing them by calling them ideologues as if that’s an evil thing and say the party itself shouldn’t even exist.

Focus more on making the Rs actually DO what they say in their platform. Change my mind that way that I should be swayed back. Your opinion of the interpretation of a party’s platform you say shouldn’t even be allowed to exist much less at parity for ballot access with the others is not of value.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 01:12:08 PM
Oh?

And just what do you think "really matters"?

I haven't received any pics, sorry.

Next demonization please. :

You sound a lot like tootsie you know. Walls of text copies and pastes rather than walls of nonsense memebase gifs. I don’t think she’s smart enough for that level of gamesmanship though.

All you can do is google things and paste it all.  We all have google access so feel free to skip that bit and think for yourself.

What really matters is finding something you’re FOR and trying to advance that in the 3D world. Get out from behind your keyboard and do something.

Probably should start focusing on what really matters Metron and quit thinking with your dick.

I guess that’s what this is. Hope the pics were good.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 12:20:25 PM
Eat
    Shit
        And
             Die!

You post from the platform but nothing specific to the thing you allege the platform is opposed to, at least not directly.

You seem to be a very angry little man when anyone disagrees with you.  You share more with radical leftists than you would like to acknowledge.

The tactic of posting walls of texts is almost always indicative of someone without a coherent and directly provable point to make.

Please stay in the “R”s as I’d really rather not have your brand of two party system apologist around let alone one who can’t avoid Tourette’s like reaction to any disagreement.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 11:16:27 AM
I already posted their platform regarding elections, the electoral college and voting process.

This witless "prove a negative for me" game is REJECTED!

Nothing in the Constitution Party's charter or platform supports a move away from one man one vote and you damned well know it, liar!

One more strawman - you really couldn't debate honestly if you had to.



You will note that I made no claim that this analysis of extant 'ranked voting" experimentation in Maine was a "platform statement" from the Constitution Party.

That is a whole cloth LIE of your own manufacture.

And one more strawman!



No one here ever said that you yourself comprise the Constitution Party.

This is sheer lunacy from you.

And yet another strawman is made!



I have presented several clear and unambiguous essays demonstrating the likelihood that a 3rd party milieu will only result in further polarization and in due time the end of the Republican party. You simply can't handle the truth.


Non sequitur.

Dressed as a strawman this time.



I've made my case as to just what happens in the real world with coalition governance.

And you have sidestepped it completely.

There really is no discussion possible with someone as intellectually dishonest as yourself, just none.

https://www.reference.com/world-view/disadvantages-coalition-government-1a42db622da73883

There are several disadvantages of coalition government, which include a weaker and less decisive government, as well as a more confused government. It is difficult for political control to be implemented when there are multiple parties involved such as in a coalition.

The coalition does not provide one party with the power to implement their ideas so the end result is that very few ideas, if any, are implemented because an agreement cannot be reached between parties. The idea behind a coalition government is that it is to be a partnership between parties, and both parties will be treated equal.

Another problem found in a coalition government is that there is a great deal of instability within the government. It is important for coalition governments to set up procedures that can work through conflict and mitigate disputes in order for the coalition partnership to survive.

Coalition governments are most often seen in Europe and appear throughout the U.K. When coalition governments work at their best, they join together to form a united front while retaining their distinctive individual beliefs. This is what can often be seen as an advantage and a disadvantage. From a disadvantage standpoint, it is difficult to achieve true unity between disparate parties, leading to little action from the government.

You keep posting from all sorts of media sources except the party itself.

All you have is to keep yelling “strawman” and provide no direct statement from the party itself. You started this whole thing by having the attitude that how dare you say you support the constitution party yet have that opinion about ranked voting.  Well I can have my own opinions and you still haven’t provided a specific statement on the topic from the party itself unlike many others that intentionally exist in the platform on marriage etc. you also argue we don’t need a third party so wouldn’t that basically be arguing that the thing you allegedly support shouldn’t even exist?  Which Bush are you?

If we are posting random internet links then try reading this.  It attempts to outline how you don’t get MORE than one vote thus not violating the one man one vote principle. Rather you get one single vote applied in your own specified order of preference.

Wasted vote argument gone. And you still only voted for one candidate.

https://www.fairvote.org/how_ranked_choice_voting_survives_the_one_person_one_vote_challenge

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 10:18:09 AM
I'm not at all sure we really need a 3rd party given the observed gridlock of what multi-party coalition governance is in the real world. Do you fathom that we'd be better served by a minor 3rd party presence than by having two sides come to center on at least certain issues?

So you just directly contradicted an ACTUAL platform statement assuming you actually pasted something accurate but it seems right from memory. This says all candidates should be treated equally and we seek to get rid of major party status. You then say wellll I don’t think we necessarily need a third party. Saying you “support” the constitution party and then make the argument that you don’t think we need a third party seems pretty contradictory to me. With friends like that who needs enemies.

Quote
To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage​​ to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other more stringent criteria.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 11, 2018, 10:37:27 AM
Like the truth that the Constitution Party does NOT promote "ranked voting"

Yes, that one has you a 6s and 9s...

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/05/30/commentary-one-person-one-vote-at-risk-if-ranked-choice-voting-approved/

HARPSWELL â€" When Maine voters adopted ranked-choice voting in 2016, one message was clear. They did not like their governors to be elected by less than a majority. So they adopted the only alternative offered to them.

Electing governors by a plurality â€" the candidate with the most votes wins â€" had become a habit. In the 2010 election, Paul LePage won because the opposition vote was split. That tipped the balance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gordon L. Weil of Harpswell is the editor of a set of U.S. Supreme Court decisions and has a doctorate in public law and government from Columbia University.


If Maine wanted to abandon the plurality system â€" now used by 40 other states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures â€" it would have to find an alternative. In short, if you wanted to abandon plurality voting, you had to accept ranked-choice voting.

That’s just what happened. It’s likely that many voters knew what they were rejecting without a clear idea about what they were accepting. Few voters had heard that the proposed system was not consistent with the Maine Constitution, which mandates plurality voting for state elections.

The Legislature tried to impose a pause on using ranked-choice voting until the voters could decide if they wanted to amend the Maine Constitution. But a people’s veto and an April 17 Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruling allowed party primaries to take place this year under the new system.

Ranked-choice supporters want to block the pause permanently, leaving Maine with a confused election system. The state now has a patchwork, with some elections, like party primaries, using ranked-choice voting, while other elections, like the one for governor, still use plurality voting.

Question 1 on the ballot would leave this split system in place. If it is voted down, ranked-choice voting might remain an option, but could be considered along with other choices. That’s why Mainers should vote “no” on Question 1. They can keep their options open.

Supporters rejected doubts about whether ranked-choice voting was constitutional. But a year ago, the justices of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court disagreed with the system’s advocates and advised that at least part of it is unconstitutional.

Now, ranked-choice voting is likely to face yet another legal challenge. It appears to violate the “one person, one vote” requirement that the U.S. Supreme Court says is imposed by the U.S. Constitution.

NBC News splashed this headline on its website: “Maine tries ‘ranked choice’ voting: A ballot can ‘count’ more than once.” It’s correct.

If you vote for the front-running candidate produced by the first computer vote tabulation, that could be your only vote. But if you vote for candidates with less support, you get the automatic chance to cast a new vote for other candidates, perhaps more than once.

Under ranked-choice voting, some voters will have the chance to vote for more candidates than will others. That looks like a violation of “one person, one vote.”

Ranked choice voting is sold as an “instant runoff.” But that may only be the case for some voters. In a real runoff, everybody gets to vote again.

The issue of “one person, one vote” was already raised in the Maine Supreme Judicial Court by one justice. It will certainly have its day in court, possibly both state and federal. It would be unwise to dismiss the question, based on the last time supporters ignored such a warning only to see the justices reject their view.

There are alternatives worth considering. They can produce the same result with much less confusion. California uses the blanket primary, in which all candidates â€" party members and independents â€" run. Many candidates run. The top two go on to the general election. Voting requires no special equipment and ballot transport as does ranked-choice voting.

Mainers deserve a serious review of all election options on matters ranging from fairness to effectiveness to simplicity to cost. How does ranked-choice voting compare? Is it a gimmick or a solution to an issue we care about? Does it make democracy more complicated?

The only way we can get the answers is to use the pause adopted by the Legislature to consider all alternatives and avoid more court challenges.

The only way to start the process to determine how we want to vote, instead of grabbing the first alternative offered, is to vote “no” on Question 1.

You apparently have issues with reading comprehension.

Where in there exactly was an explicit statement from the party itself?  You seem to use the wall of text approach to make it seem as if you’re actually answering a question but then don’t directly address it. A legal challenge in one state from some random person and a bloviating college professor is not a platform statement from the party.

Regardless of that... *I* am not myself the Constitution Party. I generally support it because it most closely aligns with my principles. That is not to say I blindly forego and turn over to a political entity of any sort the ability to think independently. If they disagreed (which you have yet to produce specific proof of explicitly) then so be it and it would be a fine thing for a platform debate in committee.

My specific statement which you failed to properly read before flying into an autistic copy and paste rage was that *I* believe some form of ranked voting (there are many approaches to this and I’m sure some far better or worse than others) may help a third party gain popularity because the throwing your vote away argument may be able to be minimized.

Anyone who blindly follows any body of people without trying to think for themselves is a fool. All of parties are just groups of people and in my world view all people are fundamentally flawed. Nothing will be perfect.

Also, consider this: wouldn’t BOTH major parties benefit from opposing anything that might lessen their monopoly on the system?  Sometimes it’s the enemies that pop up or the number of challenges that suggest you may be on the right track. Not always but it’s worth thinking about.

Quote from: Tootsie Wootsy on December 10, 2018, 08:41:42 PM
you are a little bug and a pest Enid Pee Fartwacky,  too much of a pest.. you go on ignore for your pestiness...

so long little cockroach 

You never put me on ignore. You’ve said this countless times. It’s because you’re so self absorbed you can’t stand not knowing every little thing said. ANTIFAkecancer

Quote from: Donald Noory on December 10, 2018, 08:28:55 PM

What is it about these brainwashed adherents to every talking head on Comedy Central or cnn that makes them impulsively post anything and everything off of memebase?  I guess those two channels are about equally accurate but Comedy Central I’m sure has better ratings.

Quote from: Tootsie Wootsy on December 10, 2018, 07:34:45 PM
your shit is getting old, Enid

Get used to it. You deserve every bit of it. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.

Quote from: chefist on December 10, 2018, 07:37:27 PM
Sock puppet warning card!

Do sock puppeteers work kinda like the vampire lore?  If you quiet the head honcho they all go away?  How do you determine which one for sure is the “main” to serve the card up to?

Quote from: Tootsie Wootsy on December 10, 2018, 07:30:38 PM
If you don't want to be pestered and creeped out by Enid Pee Fartwacky,, be careful posting..
Enid Pee Fartwacky  aka Creepy Thing... in action

This is a solid warning if you happen to be someone who lies about having cancer to try to get people to agree with everything you say and allow your bipolar childish meltdowns every few days with a big side order of attention whoring. I’ll do the same calling anybody out on it. Tootsie is just a repeat offender so gets the enhanced public service advisory package upgrade.

Quote from: Tootsie Wootsy on December 10, 2018, 08:17:58 AM
WARNING!! TO NEW MEMBERS!!  ROUGH ROAD AHEAD!!!
POST AT YOUR OWN RISK!!

I couldn’t agree more. Stay away from Tootsie. She’s nuttier than a fruitcake.

On the other hand if you enjoy screeching libtard habitual liars and have a fake oncology degree she could use your help.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 10, 2018, 05:31:24 PM
LIAR!

Your own words:

NO THANK YOU TRUDUMB!

Keep that vote rigging and candidate bleaching up in your own walk in cooler of a nation:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/15/a-look-at-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-voting-system-once-touted-by-trudeau_n_11522342.html

OTTAWA â€" Justin Trudeau has promised that last fall's federal election will be the last conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.
In the past, the prime minister has expressed a preference for replacing FPTP with a system in which voters rank their choices on the ballot, although he has since said he is also open to some form of proportional representation (PR).

Under a ranked ballot, voters mark their first, second and subsequent choices. If no candidate wins more than 50 per cent of the vote, the contender with the fewest votes is dropped from the ballot and his or her supporters' second choices are counted. That continues until one candidate emerges with a majority.


Oh?

So you think the Constitution Party supports "ranked voting"?

https://www.constitutionparty.com/principles/platform-preamble/#ElectionReform

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature​​ thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing* Senators.”

The Constitutional balance of power on this matter has been destroyed by the 17th Amendment. The States no longer have a representative at the Federal level.**

The Constitution Party seeks the restoration of an electoral process that is controlled at the state and local level and is beyond manipulation by federal judges and bureaucrats. The federal government has unconstitutionally and unwisely preempted control in matters of district boundaries, electoral procedures, and campaign activities.

The Voting Rights Act should be repealed. The Federal Election Campaign Act, including its 1974 amendments, and the Federal Election Commission should be abolished.

Each citizen should have the right to seek public office in accordance with the qualifications set forth in federal and state constitutions.

Additional restrictions and obligations governing candidate eligibility and campaign procedures burden unconstitutionally the fairness and accountability of our political system.

To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage​​ to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other more stringent criteria.

We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. McCain- Feingold) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In order to avoid election fraud, we insist electronic and mechanical voting processes provide a clear, auditable and verifiable paper trail. At a minimum, elections should be​​ audited at random at the precinct level after the polls close.

There is a growing movement within the states and nation to undermine our right of a “Secret Ballot” by making people vote by absentee ballot. ​​ This move away from a “Secret Ballot” and “Vote-in-person” approach is an insecure system, not only because the Post office has been losing and misplacing mail for many years, but also because of increasing fraud and vote rigging, such as voter suppression, vote buying, and ballot box stuffing. Even though Vote- By-Mail seems to increase voting percentages in the short-term, it has proven to cause a long-term decline. Also verifying signatures “after the fact” greatly increases the cost of an election. Since true freedom requires being inconvenienced and​​ putting forth extra effort from time- to-time, we oppose any movement to codify or use Vote-By-Mail and other such schemes which undermine the liberty-preserving privilege of voting in secret, in person, at precinct-based polling places.

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states, in part:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal​​ to the whole Number of Senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

This established the Electoral College.

The Constitution does not provide for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States by popular vote, but rather by the selection of “Electors” according to rules adopted by each state’s legislators. ​​ These electors would receive the list of certified candidates. They would then cast their vote for whomever they ascertained as best qualified to fill these two highest offices of trust with the federal government. The Constitution Party seeks a restoration of this electoral process for the choosing of the President and the Vice President of the United States.

Although the Constitution does not require the states to adhere to any specific manner in electing these electors or how they cast their votes, it suggests, by its wording, that prominent individuals from each congressional district, and from the state at large, would be elected or appointed as electors that represent that district. Under this arrangement, a voter would vote for three individuals, one​​ to represent his district and two "at large" representatives to represent his state. ​​ These electors, in turn, would then carefully and deliberately select the candidate for president. Under this system each congressional district could, in essence, select a different candidate. The candidate with the most electors nationwide would become the next president.

This was the general procedure used until the 1830's at which time all the states, except for South Carolina, changed to a "general ticket." The "general ticket" system is still in use today. Inherently, it causes corruption by the inequitable transfer of power from congressional districts to the states and large cities at the expense of rural communities.

The Constitution Party encourages states to eliminate the "general ticket" system and return to the procedure intended by the Framers. ​​ The so-called National Popular Vote is a dangerous threat to our Constitutional Republic, allowing as few as eighteen to twenty-one states to circumvent the Constitutional requirement of 38 states to amend the Constitution. The National Popular Vote process would effectively eliminate the last vestiges of the Electoral College as originally set forth in the United States Constitution. The National Popular Vote creates​​ a fake majority by forcing electors to vote against the votes cast by their own constituents.

The elimination of the Electoral College would overnight make irrelevant the votes of Americans in approximately 25 states because candidates would only be interested in campaigning in large population states making small states meaningless zeros. There is no threshold of what constitutes a “majority” under National Popular Vote. ​​ Therefore, a presidential candidate could be elected with as little as 15% of the popular vote. ​​ Under the National Popular Vote scheme, chaos would ensue in any close election. Under the Electoral College no single faction or region of the country can elect a president, ensuring broad representation across America.

The national Constitution Party opposes National Popular Vote and will work to defeat it in individual state legislatures.

Any thing there is this party you claim to support that suggests "ranked voting"?

I have no issue with your maintaining youir privacy, none at all.

I do have MAJOR ISSUES with "ranked voting" and I do not for one moment believe the CP has interest in it. If so please let me know with clear citations here and I shall avoid them like the fucking plague!

Nope. I was zoo'd by Bart for calling that scummy leftard Tiger Lily aleftarded twat!

If you have other evidence than that please feel free to provide it.

The faulty 'logic' of an utter and complete hypocrite.

Yep, as expected.

At no point in your dim witted copy and paste session did you point out any plank of the platform that specifically opposes any and all ranked voting system.  A lack of a plank specifically endorsing a particular or generalized ranked voting system does not imply all variants of such systems are explicitly opposed.

How precisely else do you suggest we open up the door for a third party to get votes for first preference if drooling nitwits like you refuse to vote your principles because you’re still making the self defeating “you’re wasting your vote” argument. I say you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing as well. You’re arguing against yourself. Not one individual at the conventions I’ve been to has ever said “oh well it doesn’t look like we can win so I’m just gonna yank the lever for another Bush”. Are you kidding me?  You made that argument.

My actions speak for me. I’ve made good on backing my principles in real life. With real money and real time. Get off your blowhard ass and do the same rather than just trying to argue with those who already are.

Additionally, I don’t expect you to know how this works because you’ve obviously never participated in the process but there was very spirited and lively debate on those committees surrounding many things like drug legalization and so forth. It is not only important what you explicitly endorse but also what you say nothing of and degrees in between.  Very good men and women had very different opinions on some things.  No one agreed on every single thing.  My argument to look at other IN PERSON voting approaches to allow voting of ones conscience wouldn’t be shared by all but would be shared by some.  People bigger than you would have a principled discussion about it rather than just shouting like a dullard. I encourage you to work on that if you ever decide to try to actually put your actions where your big fat mouth is.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 10, 2018, 11:21:09 AM
Perhaps because I don't recall her making such a claim.

Is it possible you're taking her gamesmanship as full-on truth?
Wow, just fucking wow.

You CLAIM to be supporting the "lazy ass constitution party" and yet simultaneously seek to destroy the very CONSTITUTIONAL "one man one vote" that our framers set this nation up with?

FRAUD!

FUCKING GODDAMNED FRAUD TRASH TRAITOR TO AMERICA!

DIAF motherrfucker!

You appear to be a massive retard. In no way have I done anything to destroy the idea of one man one vote.  I also don’t just claim to support the party because of the principles it advances. I actually do so.

While people like you are keyboard warrioring on here like blowhards to an audience of only yourself I actually have spent hundreds of hours working ballot access petitions, running information booths, on state and national meetings and platform committees and served as a state delegate to the national convention not to mention the actual monetary contributions over the years. The only reason I don’t post very specific details as proof is I don’t care to dox myself for rabid poop flingers or the mentally unbalanced and have to spend time in court after one of you mentally unstable nitwits causes me to have to defend myself in some way after being tracked down. I can use my time more productively than that.

You aren’t familiar with tootsies antifa nonsense because you were quarantined in the neighboring territory because you consistently behave like an idiot. That’s why I don’t feel bad about a thing over here as far as toileting up threads is concerned. It’s already far beyond saving.

Quote from: StarrMountain on December 10, 2018, 05:57:22 AM
Indeed.

Although I did not coin the phrase, I did give credit to the series "Battlestar Galactica" from where it came.
I was the first to use it on this forum, which is, sadly, disintegrating since it's return.
I love the friends I've made here over the many years, since 2010.  You will always be special in my heart.   

This forum has almost nothing to do with its original purpose anymore. Its decline unfortunately started long before this years disappearing act.

Quote from: ZaZa on December 09, 2018, 09:51:46 PM
Be nice cunt to Tootsie Wootsy, she might post pictures of her tits.
If you going to insult her she might never post them.

At the moment I’m more inclined to believe “she” is in fact a dude in their mid 30s still living in their parents basement. If you want to see those bazoombas I guess you’re welcome to have those to yourself.

Quote from: ZaZa on December 09, 2018, 09:17:22 PM
Tootsie Wootsy,
take the biggest dildo in your collection and smack that cunt over the head with it.

Which one of the six actual people left on this board are you again?

Quote from: Nucky Nolan on December 09, 2018, 09:13:01 PM
It sounds like we have a new DSM classification. Where's Dr. Onan when you need him?

Lol if only Tootsie could ever be so lucky. She’ll only get a brief mention in the obits after going completely psycho on some poor cop trying to tell her to move the 1990 caprice classic she’s living in because it’s in a no parking zone I reckon. 

Quote from: Tootsie Wootsy on December 09, 2018, 09:15:37 PM
i know what's tiny on you, idiot, and one of them is your brain

Lol ok. I wouldn’t diddle you with the hobo under the bridge’s crank. You know nothing of me which is obvious.  You on the other hand are as transparent as can be. I hope you can find the truth at some point after the fog lifts from whatever college professors have corrupted your conscience.

Quote from: Metron2267 on December 09, 2018, 03:18:57 PM
Please demonstrate for the any logic in the choice of the Goreon?

We conservatives  had a choice, we had mostly Bush's governance resume in Texas to go by, and frankly McStain might have been far worse had he broken from the pack and taken the nomination, agreed?

A 3rd party vote remains by any measure a wasted vote.

And who is this person?

Of course, that's the drug of the Hegelian sort - an either/or decision tree is like a quarterback with only 2 receivers.

That other person I referred to in regard to Antifa charter membership is tootsie. No idea how you wouldn’t have noticed that.

I voted Trump at the polls last presidential go round only because I was already there and found the lazy ass constitution party hadn’t gained ballot access in Texas. I continue to reject the two party system and will continue to push for something on the order of ranked voting to change the paradigm.

Quote from: Nucky Nolan on December 09, 2018, 07:50:20 PM
I doubt that he/she could define "sheriff", let alone "tariff". He/she *is* the definition of stupidity, though.

Obvious tootsie is obvious.

Quote from: DigitalPigSnuggler on December 09, 2018, 08:03:43 PM
Why don't you try ignoring her?  Is that possible, or do you insist on being an enabler?

I insist on being her cancer. You know. Like the fake internet kind she claimed to have.

Quote from: Tootsie Wootsy on December 09, 2018, 03:35:52 PM
everyone know i am a  bad girl   

I see you’re back as “tiny hands”.  Did you lose the password for a couple days or something?