# Electoral College and Term Limits discussion



## Ranger Psych (Jan 5, 2019)

Republicans introduce constitutional amendment for term limits in Congress

Discuss...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 5, 2019)

Ranger Psych said:


> Republicans introduce constitutional amendment for term limits in Congress
> 
> Discuss...



It looks like they introduced two amendments. It goes no where, wastes their time, but provides the feel good fuzzies their constituents want; hell, even if such an amendment (EC) were to pass the House and Senate, there is no way that 38 states would ratify it--there are only 5 or 6 that would benefit from it.

If this is the shit the Dems want to waste their time on, more power to them.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 5, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> It looks like they introduced two amendments. It goes no where, wastes their time, but provides the feel good fuzzies their constituents want; hell, even if such an amendment (EC) were to pass the House and Senate, there is no way that 38 states would ratify it--there are only 5 or 6 that would benefit from it.
> 
> If this is the shit the Dems want to waste their time on, more power to them.



While I do not disagree with a single word you said, term limits are very very needed. I hate the concept of the professional politician, something not right with the system when you go into office making, say, $100,000 a year, come out making five times that.  But it's dead in the water and won't go anywhere.  I mean, who wants to give up that lifestyle?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 5, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> While I do not disagree with a single word you said, term limits are very very needed. I hate the concept of the professional politician, something not right with the system when you go into office making, say, $100,000 a year, come out making five times that.  But it's dead in the water and won't go anywhere.  I mean, who wants to give up that lifestyle?



I am all for term limits....in fact I’ve heard some conversation about term limits for the Supreme Court as well....


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 5, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I am all for term limits....in fact I’ve heard some conversation about term limits for the Supreme Court as well....



I think SCOTUS appointments should remain as they are. They have say in legality and end application, but at the same time they can only act on what they're presented.. it's not like they just make shit up out of their ass, no matter if we like it or not.  The actual ones making this shit up? Those that no longer live among the masses will never truly hear their plights when the hill they live on grows too high.

Also find it extremely interesting with inflation adjustment for net value for pre-service and post-service, or even current in-service values for some of these fucks.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 5, 2019)

The only way a term limit gets added to the constitution is through a states convention. Congress would never vote to limit themselves. I agree it's cannon fodder for the voters and will go absolutely no where.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 5, 2019)

I look at term limits as a States Rights conversation.  There's a term limit for the POTUS because that is a federal issue.  Representatives and Senators are elected by their districts and states, that is not a federal issue.

There was a journo on Bloomberg writing about how Pelosi had to lay out the Democrats vision for 2020:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081203047265644544

But I figured all along based on when Obama was POTUS that they'd never get legit good bills passed.  The healthcare bill when they had the votes was loaded with bullshit.  I smacked Obama hard about it on here because he didn't submit an actual proposal that he needed to ram through, I thought he was a Chicago politician, the kind that put knives on spines...but I was obviously wrong because we ended up with something horrible.  yet, the Democratic caucus that controlled the House and Senate made their cross deals for their own agendas on that bill so they could get something on other bills (the usual Washington bullshit).

So yeah, I don't see any progress happening in the House of Representatives anytime soon because that's not what they want.


----------



## DasBoot (Jan 5, 2019)

Two sides to term limits-

Side A: term limits will do away with professional politicians. It will force an injection of new blood into the system and do away with cliques and political dynasties.

Side B: the few competent politicians who are doing a solid job term after term, and who know the system and how to work it in a positive manner, will be gone.

I would put more stock in Side A, as I feel our country needs more people willing to break from the establishment and not vote solely along party lines for the sake of their own re-election.

In regards to the electoral college, I firmly believe it needs to be done away with. My dad and I have a decade long argument about this that started in High School. He’s extremely intelligent and has first hand knowledge of how DC works from his time working as an aide to the Joint Staff and later working for the Care Coalition. He knows his stuff- but I have always disagreed on the EC.

He argued for years that the EC prevents fools from getting elected. I vividly recall this line- “if we didn’t have the electoral college, Kanye West would become President.”

Well... not quite Kanye but we ended up with a reality TV star with a questionable past and zero experience. (Side note: I don’t want to derail this into a discussion about POTUS, his credibility or his administration. I’m simply stating the facts. We can argue how credible those facts are in another thread, this is me as a non- partisan observer).

We have now had two elections in less than 20 years where the President was not elected with a true majority of the votes. Every other elected official I can think of goes by popular vote- senators and governors need a true majority to win. The logic is they are a representative of their constituency. The president is a representative of the American people to the world and should reflect the majority of the American people’s wishes.

The last election led to over a million votes Essentially being wasted. We can degrade both candidates all we want, at the end of the day, most of the country voted for Hillary. Yet we got the other candidate. That seems wrong to me.

The argument regarding giving everyone an equal say is always brought up. Smaller rural states get to punch above their weight class via the EC. While I respect that we want to watch out for rural voters and states with small populations, I feel that argument is nullified when you consider that they are being over represented compared to the votes of the people in larger states.

In the same vein, what about people in regions that don’t vote along the lines of the rest of their state? Look at upstate NY and Western Mass, both places I know very well. Upstate is closer to a southern state in terms of culture and politics than it is to NYC and Long Island. Western Mass is a place where a Libertarian could do well. Both of those states leave their Republican voters with wasted votes as their states will always go blue. You can apply this logic to NORCAL and rural MN outside of the Twin Cities.

So I would say I support the dems move to do away with the EC and the Republicans desire to institute term limits.

Will congress vote themselves out of a job? No. Will the GOP controlled senate and executive branch allow their one solid hold on an electorate that is changing against their favor allow the EC to go? No.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 5, 2019)

Well, they can prove it's important to them by not running for another term, as all those named (as far as I know) are on their 2nd+ term.
In all honesty, it's not a bad idea, but the time limits are woefully short for how complicated our government is.
Make it 12 years max as a Rep and 18 as a Senator (30 years max service in congress), and add in a "no lobbying for X(I vote 12) years" and I'd like it better. 

I mentioned the electoral college in the "what's wrong with the left" thread, but I'll restate it here.

Electoral college needs to stay, but become a proportional system based on districts.
Since I live in Colorado, I'll use it for my example. CO has 9 electoral votes (7 reps, 2 senators).
Under my ideal system, each representative district would award its electoral vote to the winner of the district; the winner of the state at large would be awarded the two votes that represent senators.

I think this system would prevent rule of(population) majority, and decrease voter apathy.

How many Republicans in California/New York, or Democrats in Texas/Alabama, don't vote because its seen as worthless? I think this system might fix that.


----------



## digrar (Jan 5, 2019)

Term limits or a mandatory retirement age are in order, the amount of octogenarian and septuagenarian Members and Senators you guys have is staggering. 42 senators and 112 members who are past retirement age and another 18 and 56 who wouldn't finish a full term before hitting 66 and 2 months of age. A case of baby boomers not trusting the young?  

I think we have a Senator in his early 70s, a few in their late 60s, but most would be 10 years either side of 50. The average age of a UK MP is 50.


----------



## Box (Jan 5, 2019)

The electoral college is also what PREVENTED Bill Clinton's wife from picking the draperies at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. 
It's also what kept aL goRe out of the White House - 

It was designed to PREVENT pure populism from winning the day.  The current POTUS certainly didn't win the popularity contest.  Hillary won the popularity contest.  
Did "we the people win"
At least 65 million people think "no"  but we still got the best of the two choices based on the view from my foxhole.  

THAT is why the electoral college works the way it does.   It keeps the residents of 5 or 6 of our biggest cities from deciding who leads the entire nation.  

Term limits are best instituted at the ballot box.  The problem is the ability to hold politicians accountable once they have fooled their way into a job. 
I'm just argumentative on the issue - neither is a good fit.  The need for term limits is just proof that the average American voter is a shit heel that doesn't care who wins.   
Do the people in Pelosi's district want term limits? 
What about the people in Maxine Waters district?

That's the REAL problem with term limits - we want to limit everyone else's term.   I'm happy with my guy - I want him to stay as long as he can but those crazy broads out west - they gotta go !!! 

Besides - make politicians part-time help and they'll just gravitate to the bureaucracy where they cant be fired
THEN we really will have a shadow gubmint.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 5, 2019)

digrar said:


> Term limits or a mandatory retirement age are in order, the amount of octogenarian and septuagenarian Members and Senators you guys have is staggering. 42 senators and 112 members who are past retirement age and another 18 and 56 who wouldn't finish a full term before hitting 66 and 2 months of age. A case of baby boomers not trusting the young?
> 
> I think we have a Senator in his early 70s, a few in their late 60s, but most would be 10 years either side of 50. The average age of a UK MP is 50.



I’ll have to look it up later, when I’m home and have time, but an east coast newspaper (most likely either WaPo or NYT) interviewed the pharmacist that serves members of Congress. He never named names, but he did say that there are two prescriptions for Alzheimer’s medication that he fills regularly. 

Let that sink in for a minute.


----------



## digrar (Jan 5, 2019)

How good is that gravy train when even a severe mental health issue won't prompt you to get off it...


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Jan 5, 2019)

Term limits yes.

Get rid of the electoral college no.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 5, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> Post.



The Electoral College did it's job.  If you go purely by popular vote, these would have been your presidents:

2016 Hillary Clinton (Donald Trump)
2000 Al Gore (George Bush)
1888 Grover Cleveland (Benjamin Harrison)
1876 Samuel Tilden (Rutherford B Hayes)

In 1824 Jackson won the Popular Vote and the Electoral college and yet somehow John Quincy Adams won the damn thing because Jackson had an enemy that was VP...

Now, Rutherford B Hayes only won by 1 Electoral vote, so in that case we could probably say the system did not work.  Why Should people in the middle be held at gunpoint by people in New York?  That's the whole purpose of the Electoral College, to prevent that.  

It is important to note that Hillary did not win the "popular vote" in that she did not win more than 50%, more than 50% cast their votes against her.  Same in 2000.


----------



## DasBoot (Jan 5, 2019)

ThunderHorse said:


> The Electoral College did it's job.  If you go purely by popular vote, these would have been your presidents:
> 
> 2016 Hillary Clinton (Donald Trump)
> 2000 Al Gore (George Bush)
> ...


48.2% to POTUS’ 46.1% with the rest split between 3rd party candidates. 3 million plus votes over her opponent and she did not win. That is not the system working- that’s the system throwing the equivalent of the population of Iowa’s votes out. 

Also the fact the legislative branch can decide the presidency in extreme situations does not sit well with me. If one party has the majority they can negate the choice of people and that does not sit well with me.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 6, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> 48.2% to POTUS’ 46.1% with the rest split between 3rd party candidates. 3 million plus votes over her opponent and she did not win. That is not the system working- that’s the system throwing the equivalent of the population of Iowa’s votes out.
> 
> Also the fact the legislative branch can decide the presidency in extreme situations does not sit well with me. If one party has the majority they can negate the choice of people and that does not sit well with me.



That's the states own individual choice within how the electoral college works in their respective areas.


----------



## AWP (Jan 6, 2019)

If you want to make it a popular vote takes all, then make the winning percentage something like 70-75%. Make certain it is a majority of Americans, I don't consider 60 or even 65% enough. Less than that 70%? The EC decides.


----------



## Box (Jan 6, 2019)

The mathematics of "total votes" could be argued until the cows come home.

So lets "throw out" all of Iowas votes to make it fair, we'll also throw out all of their electoral votes and count that again...  Trump still wins
Then lets throw out Californias electoral and popular vote.  Trump wins again - and this time he wins even bigger.
...all because we threw out the votes from one state

Look at any electoral map in its final form - it's mostly red.  The left coast and the North East are the only hard blue.   New York City, DC, LA, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Portland, Baltimore, and New Jersey is what provided Bill Clinton's wife with her YUGE margin of the popular vote.

A few of these are cities that have citizens electing activists that want to disarm their police, openly advertise that they are going to stop enforcing certain laws,  and cities with leaders that think rioters should just be left alone so they can riot.   Then consider that in California alone, Bills wife outscored President Trump by 4 million votes.  She had a 2 million vote lead in NY and almost a million in Illinois.   The classic blue states put her ahead by 7 million votes and in the end, she only held on to a 4 million liberal lead in the popularity contest.

It also needs to be acknowledged that in every state EXCEPT Maine - the candidate that won the popular vote got the electoral votes as well.   Maine allocated electoral vote  3 to the Democratic candidate (20,000 vote lead) and 1 to the Republican candidate.  EVERY state got what they voted for.  Look at the map by precincts and you really will get to see how "your neighbors" voted.  Failing cities, led by liberals that are elected by ignorant voters are where you will find the little spots of blue that gave Mrs Clinton the millions of vote lead in the popularity contest.

Lastly, there needs to be an unhappy acceptance of the fact that WE.ARE.NOT.A.DEMOCRACY.
One man one vote is a neat protest slogan - but it is not what put our country on the map.
We are a representative republic that NEEDS the electoral college to survive as the nation that we wish to be.
Everything else is an illusion - created by people that are educated by lobbyists.

But hey - everyone gets a vote even the ones that need to be told not to eat paint chips


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 6, 2019)

AWP said:


> If you want to make it a popular vote takes all, then make the winning percentage something like 70-75%. Make certain it is a majority of Americans, I don't consider 60 or even 65% enough. Less than that 70%? The EC decides.



Your percentage examples lead into another point as well. Barely a majority of the country even votes. I think it was like 58%-60% of eligible voters that voted.

*IF *we ever switched to a full democracy, I think we'd need to get those numbers above 90% for it to work.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 6, 2019)

A true democracy would destroy us as a nation. I agree a two thirds vote should be the standard for a "majority" but even then you fall to a popularity contest. We are a republic and that should never change.  

As for the term limits, we need to take those idiots down a few notches. If it works for POTUS then it will work for the Congress and the Senate.


----------



## DasBoot (Jan 6, 2019)

Cookie_101st said:


> Your percentage examples lead into another point as well. Barely a majority of the country even votes. I think it was like 58%-60% of eligible voters that voted.
> 
> *IF *we ever switched to a full democracy, I think we'd need to get those numbers above 90% for it to work.


I am not for forcing people to do things, but I am for incentivizing good behavior. Make Election Day a holiday and offer a tax refund if you have proof of voting. Something like that to try and get the voting numbers up.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Jan 6, 2019)

Box said:


> The mathematics of "total votes" could be argued until the cows come home....
> ...*But hey - everyone gets a vote even the ones that need to be told not to eat paint chips*
> 
> 
> View attachment 25859




Ah the old stupid map. The red is where the stu-pids live, and the blue is where the smarties congregate. Used to be a popular bumper sticker back in the early 2000's when dumb Bush won by electoral college. 

Leave it up to Box to lay it down again....He might actually be an AI program.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 6, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> I am not for forcing people to do things, but I am for incentivizing good behavior. Make Election Day a holiday and offer a tax refund if you have proof of voting. Something like that to try and get the voting numbers up.



Increasing availability/understanding of mail-in-ballots and making it the first weekend in November (Sat/Sun) would help a ton.


----------



## digrar (Jan 6, 2019)

DasBoot said:


> I am not for forcing people to do things, but I am for incentivizing good behavior. Make Election Day a holiday and offer a tax refund if you have proof of voting. Something like that to try and get the voting numbers up.



We have always voted on a Saturday and make voting prior to the actual day an easy process, either mailing or attending an early voting centre (with where I work out in the desert, I don't think I've voted on the day in 15 years).
 Voting is compulsory, with a smallish fine for not participating. We managed about 91% turnout at the last federal election and about 5% of those were informal votes (defaced, donkey votes, left blank etc).
We have to supply our name and address and be physically marked off the roll, but don't have to present ID, which I personally feel is ridiculous.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 6, 2019)

We have to present ID now but it can be any form. I'm not quite sure when this came about though, possibly just this election passed. 

What would you guys think about an MMP style system? MMP Voting System

I'm all for term limits here too but the issue isn't as severe here as there.


----------



## GOTWA (Jan 6, 2019)

I think it's ridiculous that we even have to have the discussion about incentivizing election participation.  I honestly don't know what the next 2 years will bring.  The next 10 worry me.  What follows after that?  I might find Jesus.  I feel like it's just a sad state of affairs, really.  

I know the internet wasn't around 'back then' (whatever the time period it didn't exist), but I'm curious if the old timers had these same/like discussions.  You know, same stuff, just now it's more visible due to technology.  If they did, I'll feel more comfortable about everything.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 7, 2019)

I don't think voting should have any further incentive introduced to it than making election day a national holiday.  If you choose to abstain by presence when you have no other responsibilities, then your input (and voice, following election day) should be moot.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 7, 2019)

I think you could given bypass the need for a national holiday if you made it on Saturdays.


----------



## GOTWA (Jan 7, 2019)

Plenty of people still work the weekend. Would likely need to be a multi-day event if the goal is to achieve maximum participation. I think a lot of people have just given up on the process because they have a nihilistic view of politicians and the overall political atmosphere.

 I use to go back and forth with @amlove21 and his hippy ways, but the further this shit drags on, the more I agree with him. 😋


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 7, 2019)

GOTWA said:


> Plenty of people still work the weekend.



But the majority do not and shift workers can find 15 minutes to go vote on a Saturday or Sunday than an office worker can during the week.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Jan 7, 2019)

SpitfireV said:


> But the majority do not and shift workers can find 15 minutes to go vote on a Saturday or Sunday than an office worker can during the week.



Enough work on the weekend to make it a disservice for it not to be a national holiday, or if not a holiday, a civic duty day.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 7, 2019)

Idk why they can't figure out a way to do a secure online vote. Granted stupid problems involved with that, but it just seems dumb that we have to show up at some school or whatever, punch holes in paper ballets when I can buy a fucking car with the phone in my pocket. 

I get the security issues and "who" is actually casting a vote.  But really, it wouldn't be that hard to develop a government voting portal with a special 'voter login pin' you get when you register, and bam,  all clowns have to do is log in, vote and be done.  Nobody needs a day off,  nobody needs a holiday or sticker that's says they voted, etc. 

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## digrar (Jan 7, 2019)

We work weekends too... 91% turnout last election.

It might have taken me 3 minutes to vote at the early voting centre in the state election a couple of months ago. No line, straight in, straight out.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 7, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Idk why they can't figure out a way to do a secure online vote. Granted stupid problems involved with that, but it just seems dumb that we have to show up at some school or whatever, punch holes in paper ballets when I can buy a fucking car with the phone in my pocket.
> 
> I get the security issues and "who" is actually casting a vote.  But really, it wouldn't be that hard to develop a government voting portal with a special 'voter login pin' you get when you register, and bam,  all clowns have to do is log in, vote and be done.  Nobody needs a day off,  nobody needs a holiday or sticker that's says they voted, etc.
> 
> Just thinking out loud.



There was a study done on it here and it's very feasible but costly to implement. I think it's a good idea. We have a thing called RealMe which you can use to deal with government departments' online shit and for them to be sure it's you. You guys could probably tie it in with your social security number somehow. The big issue to me is voter anonymity but the data could be scrubbed of that between the point of contract and the electoral office. I dunno, smarter people than me have worked on it.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 7, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Idk why they can't figure out a way to do a secure online vote. Granted stupid problems involved with that, but it just seems dumb that we have to show up at some school or whatever, punch holes in paper ballets when I can buy a fucking car with the phone in my pocket.
> 
> I get the security issues and "who" is actually casting a vote.  But really, it wouldn't be that hard to develop a government voting portal with a special 'voter login pin' you get when you register, and bam,  all clowns have to do is log in, vote and be done.  Nobody needs a day off,  nobody needs a holiday or sticker that's says they voted, etc.
> 
> Just thinking out loud.



I can manage my tax returns online.  Every citizen who can vote most likely has a SSN; if you can use your SSN to file and manage tax returns, you can do the same with online voting.


----------



## GOTWA (Jan 7, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Idk why they can't figure out a way to do a secure online vote. Granted stupid problems involved with that, but it just seems dumb that we have to show up at some school or whatever, punch holes in paper ballets when I can buy a fucking car with the phone in my pocket.
> 
> I get the security issues and "who" is actually casting a vote.  But really, it wouldn't be that hard to develop a government voting portal with a special 'voter login pin' you get when you register, and bam,  all clowns have to do is log in, vote and be done.  Nobody needs a day off,  nobody needs a holiday or sticker that's says they voted, etc.
> 
> Just thinking out loud.


Woah, the outrage. 😉

Anything is doable with money. I think the process would need to change entirely to make an electronic vote feasible. Biometrics could be implemented to make it a bit more secure but would require a finger print and scanner, which a lot of laptops have these days. Privacy concerns? I'm sure people would have loads of them, but they're probably the same people that submit their dna for ancestrial testing.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 7, 2019)

Rep. Steve Cohen is an idiot. 

Film at 11.


----------



## Cookie_ (Jan 7, 2019)

I wish the ability to vote online was possible, as we can do it with pretty much every aspect of government, in addition to physical locations.

I can't see it becoming feasible anytime soon though. Some on the Republican side of the aisle claimed that there were millions of illegal votes in the 2016 election, with the most commonly stated number being 3 million. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that 3 million is how many votes Clinton was over on the popular count. How would it be possible for the party that believes people are using fake IDs, names, and SS# in person at voting booths, wouldn't do the same online?

Democrats would be more likely to support these measures, but not if it were to make it harder to vote normally. Some already complain about the photo ID requirements; the need for a computer and biometrics would not appeal to them.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 7, 2019)

Cookie_101st said:


> I wish the ability to vote online was possible, as we can do it with pretty much every aspect of government, in addition to physical locations.
> 
> I can't see it becoming feasible anytime soon though. Some on the Republican side of the aisle claimed that there were millions of illegal votes in the 2016 election, with the most commonly stated number being 3 million. I'm sure it's only a coincidence that 3 million is how many votes Clinton was over on the popular count. How would it be possible for the party that believes people are using fake IDs, names, and SS# in person at voting booths, wouldn't do the same online?
> 
> Democrats would be more likely to support these measures, but not if it were to make it harder to vote normally. Some already complain about the photo ID requirements; the need for a computer and biometrics would not appeal to them.



There is a way to do it, a way to do it securely and one which protects privacy.  You don't need a SSN to vote at the polls, all you need is a name and address.  Online you can set up a hard stop if the name and SSN do not match, or any number of factors.  I do believe the democrats will complain that it further disenfranchises voters if they don't have access (phone, computer, etc.).  I do believe their whole issue of a picture ID for voting (and requiring it to be burdensome) is a false flag, though.


----------



## compforce (Jan 7, 2019)

Devildoc said:


> There is a way to do it, a way to do it securely and one which protects privacy.  You don't need a SSN to vote at the polls, all you need is a name and address.  Online you can set up a hard stop if the name and SSN do not match, or any number of factors.  I do believe the democrats will complain that it further disenfranchises voters if they don't have access (phone, computer, etc.).  I do believe their whole issue of a picture ID for voting (and requiring it to be burdensome) is a false flag, though.



I actually have an entire system including security, accountability, the process to obfuscate who voted for what, etc. on paper.  To get to the point where it can be sold to a state for their process would take about $1.3M  I haven't been able to find the funding yet, but I may try the GoFundMe thing to do it.  Secure mobile voting is doable in a way that is secure and which would completely eliminate voter fraud issues.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 7, 2019)

compforce said:


> I actually have an entire system including security, accountability, the process to obfuscate who voted for what, etc. on paper.  To get to the point where it can be sold to a state for their process would take about $1.3M  I haven't been able to find the funding yet, but I may try the GoFundMe thing to do it.  Secure mobile voting is doable in a way that is secure and which would completely eliminate voter fraud issues.



I am as far from a computer geek as one can get (God love you, we need people like you):  I use my computer screen to place my post-its.  All that is to say, if I, a total tech-tard with zero imagination, can envision such a system, than it can be done.  Brother, if I had seed money to give you, I would.


----------



## BlackSmokeRisinG (Jan 7, 2019)

compforce said:


> I actually have an entire system including security, accountability, the process to obfuscate who voted for what, etc. on paper.  To get to the point where it can be sold to a state for their process would take about $1.3M  I haven't been able to find the funding yet,...



If you ever do successfuly create such a thing, sell it to each state for $83 million.


----------



## digrar (Jan 7, 2019)

We had the option of doing our Census online in 2016. It was a total cake and arse party, multiple DOS attacks, the website shut down, they weren't geared up for the volume of users.


----------



## “The Old Man” (Jan 7, 2019)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I am all for term limits....in fact I’ve heard some conversation about term limits for the Supreme Court as well....


Especially for the supreme court. When Ruth Bader-Ginsburg shows up anymore she is either falls asleep. Or as some have speculated, been under the influence of alcohol. Common sense would seem to dictate that a position such as this. Would have a mandated term  not for age but, for mental fitness and competency.


----------

