I think white people got a little scared and voted...

You can google it. Without ID laws, you only need to register as a dozen dead people and show up at their respective polling places and vote a dozen times.

 

The polarity of the last few years is a bugger.
I'm sure I recall being able to chat politics without too much inter-personal stress. Increasingly though, it's often a list of accusations from whatever side you prefer.

Soshul meeja playing a negative part?
From people in their carefully built confirmation bias bubbles to the easy ability to blurt something out, and discomfiting glimpses of friends' thoughts that would previously have remained private under 'Masonic rules' (No religion or politics at the lodge.)
If people had expressed themselves down the pub in the same way they do online, I'd have been in a lot more fights...

Always hope it doesn't damage forums where people theoretically gather to discuss something else. It shouldn't, as you hope for people not to take things too personally, but so often they do, and it does.

 

I've been bad, 'cos politics has been so entertainingly loopy of late, but am thinking I'll go back to previous attempts to stick more strongly to WW2.
It's mostly more illuminating.

 

People on both sides of the Atlantic expressed their shock at the Brexit and Trump victories. A lot of people kept quiet about their preference as insults such as racists, thickos and uneducated were bandied about. I enjoy a good debate and like to hear others opinions but will totally disregard cheap jibes that seem to be the norm today. If you cannot put forward a reasoned argument then do not expect anyone to take your tirade seriously.

 

Yes indeed. Over the last few months I've been reading about leadership in WWII and it's actually cheered me up slightly (....nothing else has....)

 

Graveyard votes and citizens voting more than once are from what I can tell far more serious issues than non citizens voting although there is likely some overlap.

Did 6 million less democrats really vote this year or did fewer people vote Democratic? From what I've read the number of independents is increasing as opposed to registered party members.

 

It is much more accurate to say 5 million fewer people voted for the Democrats than to say 5 million Democrats didn't vote.

 

And Daley in Chicago in 1960? The Zombies were voting for Kennedy .And in Fannin County (Texas ) there were 4895 registered voters, but 6138 votes were casted .

 

Good, I'm glad we can agree that notion is absurd. It's as absurd as the righty propaganda myth that Democrats "argue, with a straight face (I can't imagine how they keep themselves from bursting out laughing) that poor people don't have ID cards." In fact, a typical argument, as made by the North Carolina State Board of Elections was that upwards of 500,000 people in that state may not have a driver’s license or state issued ID card. It found that people who often move, lower‐income adults, seniors who don’t drive and women who change their names after marriage are all less likely to have current ID. Or is the North Carolina State Board of Elections presumed to be all Democratic propagandists?

Well of course it is. It's just that requiring certain forms of ID is not necessarily a solution, especially for the supposed "dead voter problem", which are about 99% the result of clerical errors or simple mistaken identity. Instead, it can be utilized as a method of targeted covert disenfranchisement. In effect, it is individualized gerrymandering. A far simpler solution would be to purge state voter rolls based on the SSA death records...except the same problems of clerical error and simple mistakes infest the SSA death records as well. There is simply no reliable data indicating that "dead voters" have ever swayed a national election, but it has been a bugaboo since the 15th Amendment specifically addressed the issue in 1870, which is basically when that "tradition" began.

Even the infamous case of Chicago in 1960 isn't clear cut. I suspect most don't realize that did result in a re-count, supervised by the Republican Cook County State's Attorney who had lost in the election, and that the result was while 863 precincts had undercounted the Republican vote, it was by 943 votes, insufficient to affect the election, especially given that 40% of all precincts undercounted Democratic votes. In the end, the State Board of Elections, four Republicans and one Democrat, also rejected the petition.

Of course, failing to prove fraud doesn't the election was clean. However, multiple election boards, state, and federal judges saw no reason to overturn the results. Nor did an Illinois special prosecutor in 1961. Nor have academic inquiries - both a 1961 study by three University of Chicago professors and more recent research by political scientist Edmund Kallina concluded that whatever fraud existed wasn't substantial enough to alter the election. Meanwhile, all that attention to supposed Democratic fraud in Chicago glosses over the alleged Republican fraud in other Illinois counties, which has also never been conclusively been proved or disproved.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27550168?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/The%20Truth%20About%20Voter%20Fraud.pdf

 

Don't for get Southern Illinois were the GOP zombies were exercising their voting rights.

However it maybe, partial recounts in 1960 & 1961 proved beyond a doubt that voter fraud did not change the outcome of the 1960 Presidential election.

 

So, did you ever notice that every account of the "massive fraud" in Texas in the 1960 election always focuses on Fannin and Angelina County? Do you know why nothing was never made of it?

It wasn't because "4,895" voters were "registered". No, 4,895 was the number of voters who paid the POLL TAX in the election. No charges or further investigation was ever undertaken because the difference were those exempt from the then current poll tax law - veterans, senior citizens, and others. Fannin County's population in 1960 was 23,880, which means about one-quarter voted, about what would be expected.

 

it isn't a either/or proposition. In some cases blue collar traditional democrat voters switched parties, but significant numbers of independents either voted for Trump or not at all. No president can get elected solely on registered Republican/Democrat voters and must rely upon 'Independents' for a victory margin.

Barrack Obama was a exceptional candidate who could draw the indies in large numbers while stimulating a over perform from traditional Dem voters. Voting for the first black American President was a historic event well beyond any normal presidential election. Though I did not vote for him in either election a part of me was still impressed we got over that hump in 2008 signalling that we as a nation is transitioning from a WASP political nation to one more multicultural.

Over all I suspect Clinton got about all any normal candidate would and could have won the election had she been a better, smarter candidate. Considering Trump had almost no ground game and spent a pittance on advertising, if they were being honest with themselves they would know they got lucky in 2016.

 

Bernie had strong union support from the outset. The more those union members heard about the comments and/or tactics "allegedly" made by DNC elites and Ms. Clinton the more angry they became. Add in the millenials who supported Bernie - they too were upset. Precinct voting analysis from some of the right leaning radio commentators, Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager to name two, indicate that African Americans either stayed home or joined some of the Democratic voters who switched.

So, soon it will be time to unite as one nation and hope that the President Elect does a great job selecting a cabinet and the various agency appointees so we can all prosper and keep the country on a wise and just course. I think he will be very humble and a gracious winner in order to rebuild bridges and complete his projects effectively.

If we could just stop meddling in the affairs of every country on earth for a while, like we know everything. We aren't the only folks in the village wearing white hats and our idea of what's right is often beyond flawed. Sure, we get it right plenty of times, but it is those fails and the inability to make proper amends that lands us in the deep water.

 

Will this help?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCEj1COO6OI

 

1) Two wrongs do not make a right

2 ) Strawman : no one said that voter fraud change the outcome of the 1960 election ;the point is that there was fraud in 1960 .