Jump to content

2018 - Elections and Trends

atomheartbevo

By atomheartbevo
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Bozo_Casanova
Bozo_Casanova

You said it in the only way that matters: you voted for it. 

Gatorubet
Gatorubet

I told my friends at work today to get ready for some excuse destroying reality.   We are no longer going to be able to excuse the behavior of voters in this election as 'being foolish', 'hoping Trump

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Fire protection. Police protection. Local road construction and maintenance. Interstate highway construction and maintenance. Airport operation, air traffic control, airline safety

Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13406

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i don't understand why we cannot vote on a machine that prints out our paper results, which we then review and submit to be scanned in as a vote.

If you don't trust the selections on the screen to be counted correctly, why are you trusting the printed paper copy to be scanned correctly?  

  1. Enter votes on a screen. 
  2. Print out paper. 
  3. Verify paper. 
  4. Scan paper into machine to count the votes. 
  5. Retain paper for potential recount.  

very inefficient process.  If I want to opt for Step 1 only, would I be allowed to? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If you don't trust the selections on the screen to be counted correctly, why are you trusting the printed paper copy to be scanned correctly?  

  1. Enter votes on a screen. 
  2. Print out paper. 
  3. Verify paper. 
  4. Scan paper into machine to count the votes. 
  5. Retain paper for potential recount.  

very inefficient process.  If I want to opt for Step 1 only, would I be allowed to? 

my main reasoning behind it has to do with two things: seeing your vote is correct, and having a paper backup in case the mechanical aspect goes down for whatever reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89396

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dertyberd said:

It's sad that Oklahoma has a system that hasn't had a controversy in my lifetime.  Backwards ass Oklahoma, think about that.  

Dems have just started winning more offices in Oklahoma.  The way things are now, when they win more offices in 2020 and 2022, you'll see the R's flipping the fuck out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dertyberd

Dertyberd 394

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Dems have just started winning more offices in Oklahoma.  The way things are now, when they win more offices in 2020 and 2022, you'll see the R's flipping the fuck out.

Dems won the only possible seat they could.  OKC has changed a lot, but the rest of the state is horrible.  The Trump candidate, "business outsider" real estate sleaze ball, just crushed in the Gov's race against a moderate, gun toting, veteran, former prosector Dem.  It wasn't even close.  OKC will continue to turn blue, along with Tulsa, but they'll have it Gerrymandered in 2020.  R's aren't losing power anytime soon and the dumbs, meths, and religious folks ain't leaving the state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seven

seven 1366

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

i don't understand why we cannot vote on a machine that prints out our paper results, which we then review and submit to be scanned in as a vote.

From my understanding, this is exactly how most of the machines in KS function. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17420

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If you don't trust the selections on the screen to be counted correctly, why are you trusting the printed paper copy to be scanned correctly?  

  1. Enter votes on a screen. 
  2. Print out paper. 
  3. Verify paper. 
  4. Scan paper into machine to count the votes. 
  5. Retain paper for potential recount.  

very inefficient process.  If I want to opt for Step 1 only, would I be allowed to? 

Or just steps 1 through 3. Use the count from the (1), but keep the paper ballot for verification (via random sampling) and hand counting if issue arises.

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If you don't trust the selections on the screen to be counted correctly, why are you trusting the printed paper copy to be scanned correctly?  

  1. Enter votes on a screen. 
  2. Print out paper. 
  3. Verify paper. 
  4. Scan paper into machine to count the votes. 
  5. Retain paper for potential recount.  

very inefficient process.  If I want to opt for Step 1 only, would I be allowed to? 


This would be older voter suppression.  No way they could master this.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25894

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I read somewhere that, nationwide, in all elections combined, Democrats averaged 9 per cent more votes than their Republican counterparts.  That seems significant if true.

It's true, but, it's also noteworthy in CA it was Dem vs. Dem for Senator (Feinstein/DeLeon) due to our "jungle primary".   

Even taking that into account, Dems received a shitload more votes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27594

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If you don't trust the selections on the screen to be counted correctly, why are you trusting the printed paper copy to be scanned correctly?  

  1. Enter votes on a screen. 
  2. Print out paper. 
  3. Verify paper. 
  4. Scan paper into machine to count the votes. 
  5. Retain paper for potential recount.  

very inefficient process.  If I want to opt for Step 1 only, would I be allowed to? 

The reason cited earlier is that a paper proof of your vote could be traded for hard cash to verify your vote was for the proper candidate. 

Scenario 1) boss goes to employees. Wants the hard copy as proof that you voted correctly. Hints at repercussions if incorrect or absent. 

Scenario 2) well-monied individual spreads word in a poor community that a vote for their preferred candidate is worth a hundred dollars. 

Neither is possible without some kind of hard copy of your vote record. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11360

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

The reason cited earlier is that a paper proof of your vote could be traded for hard cash to verify your vote was for the proper candidate. 

Scenario 1) boss goes to employees. Wants the hard copy as proof that you voted correctly. Hints at repercussions if incorrect or absent. 

Scenario 2) well-monied individual spreads word in a poor community that a vote for their preferred candidate is worth a hundred dollars. 

Neither is possible without some kind of hard copy of your vote record. 

in my scenario, you would not take the vote with you. it would remain at the polling station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25894

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

The reason cited earlier is that a paper proof of your vote could be traded for hard cash to verify your vote was for the proper candidate. 

Scenario 1) boss goes to employees. Wants the hard copy as proof that you voted correctly. Hints at repercussions if incorrect or absent. 

Scenario 2) well-monied individual spreads word in a poor community that a vote for their preferred candidate is worth a hundred dollars. 

Neither is possible without some kind of hard copy of your vote record. 

"Walking around money"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27594

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

in my scenario, you would not take the vote with you. it would remain at the polling station.

Ok. That's better. I would like to put mine in to a shredder,  sparking it up in the local voting area would probably be frowned upon. I suppose though it would be better to have them secured until the election is verified. THEN we can have the great burning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zonahorn

Zonahorn 8079

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Agent47 said:

Republicans can't win elections without cheating. It's simply mathematics. So that Trump won means he cheated via hacking, suppression and rigging. It a mathematical certainty.

The GOP is the SEC. Literally.

You can't take a hint can you Sugar?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vein

Vein 114

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I honestly believe the next conservative movement of significance will be a progressive Republican movement.  

Because it’s the only way they are ever going gain power again after Trumpism. 

We'll see in 2024. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mole

Mole 4319

Posted
Posted

In election news, it looks like Abrams has accepted defeat but isn’t conceding.

Ms. Abrams, while acknowledging Friday that she could not win, did not concede either.

“More than 200 years into Georgia’s democratic experiment, the state failed its voters,” Ms. Abrams said, her voice alternating among anguish, contempt, frustration and outrage as she argued that “eight years of systemic disenfranchisement, disinvestment and incompetence had its desired effect on the electoral process in Georgia.”

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/us/elections/georgia-governor-race-kemp-abrams.amp.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawkmvp

Jhawkmvp 1489

Posted
Posted

Senate will flip in 2020. Democrats had to defend 24 seats versus 9 for the Republicans in the mid-terms. Two independents, who vote with Democrats mostly, also had to defend. Next time Republicans will do the majority of the defending of senate seats. It won't be pretty. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27594

Posted
Posted

It turned the whole thing upside down . . . I knew who I was going to vote for before this. Now I don’t,” said a man named William, a white Republican and self-described “Trumpster” who voted for Hyde-Smith two weeks ago. He declined to provide his last name because he didn’t want to publicly disclose he was considering voting for a Democrat. “Mike Espy is a good guy. Nothing wrong with him.”

 

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2018/11/18/1813698/-GOP-s-Mississippi-Senate-candidate-is-in-real-trouble

NRSC just dropped 700k on this race. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cactusflinthead

cactusflinthead 27594

Posted
Posted

Comments are sometimes worth reading.

I live down here (it is a long story) and enjoy many aspects of southern MS. The politics is horrendous and not even slightly “conservative” in the real sense. I question whether the Trump appearances will help or hurt Cindy.

When initially chosen, the feel I got was that it was an unusually perceptive choice by Gov. Bryant, going for a woman who had not done all that much in state politics, she had been agriculture commissioner. She was no “centrist” in any real sense, but she was not the Trumpiest of candidates for the position available, notably other white men who were further “out there” than Cindy, who obviously is in way over her head. There is a guy down here, Chris McDaniel who was a state rep/ radio host who ran on the Republican side and he’s not a “Trump guy” because Trump isn’t Trump enough. IOW, there’s a “Trump is too moderate” portion of the vote here, maybe 20% of the Repubs. Fascinating. 

At the press conference where she got questions about the “public hanging” comment, Bryant literally stood in front of her to answer some, protecting his “woman” I guess. Really, though, he was likely following orders to keep her from saying something even dumber.

Her comment about “maybe making it a little harder on liberals to vote, which I think is a good idea” is classic “truth” escaping from someone not really understanding what can and cannot be said out loud. We all know that Voter ID and gerrymandering, poll lines, etc. are all part of the GOP platform, it’s just not supposed to be said out loud, and I thought that even were she to win, she could be really useful in exposing Republican “thinking” because she just clearly doesn’t have the tools to duck and dive as required by the Repub platform for the 1%. 

I am not optimistic. Some here recall very well Espy’s troubles with possible pay to play stuff (he was not convicted), so he’s not the perfect candidate, but he HAS run a positive campaign. I haven’t seen an anti-Cindy ad by him. Forcing the GOP to spend money here, forcing Trump to come down and open his mouth again, and extending the campaign news cycle into near December is all positive for team blue. And who knows? After all, there’s 2 weeks yet to go, and Cindy could say literally anything between now and then. 

From the Great Orange Satan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...