We wnt through the same silliness when Al Gore lost the electoral college but won the popular vote - it was called the Helping America Vote Act of 2003, which is effectively being repealed because HRC lost in 2016.
Nope. Not mentioned in the Constitution at all. The only thing there is how the Electoral College votes.
Maybe expand your gaze over to the Helping America Vote Act - it requires that any state that accepts federal money implement their elections as laid out in the HAVA law.
The Helping America Vote Act says any state that accepts federal funding must run their elections in a certain manner.
Pretty sure every state accepts federal funding, but hey, it's a choice - they don't have to!
This was the typical over-reaction to Al Gore winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote, now we're talking about reversing that because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote... Apparently, when a Democrat loses, the logical response is to completely up-end the voting process?
And nowhere does it give the federal government the authority to mandate how states run their elections.
Yes, and no.
The federal government very definitely requires that states only allow citizens vote on FEDERAL OFFICES, but are silent on state and local votes, which allows several localities to allow anyone, citizen or not, to vote on local school board and other elections. See the Helping Americans Vote Act.
Voter fraud is not an issue. First, I need to define this term. Voter fraud is when a person votes or attempts to vote as somebody different than who they are. It is hard to imitate a different voter and not very efficient. Republicans have been trying to prove massive voter fraud for many years, at least since George W. Bush has been in office. I don't have exact statistics handy, but there has been less that two people per state per year. It is not a problem.
Remember the poll worker that voted on behalf of her friends and family members, insisted it wasn't actually a crime, was convicted of voter fraud, and then was cheered as a hero at a democrat political rally?
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
You're right, Mr. Colorful Language, it makes no sense to require the same identification to vote as is required to enter a federal building or cash a check when someone wants to vote - it's not nearly important as either of those two activities.
I feel that we first need proof that in-person voter fraud is a big enough problem to require a solution that can potentially disenfranchise vulnerable populations.
And how, without checking state-issued ID do you propose we determine that? Maybe we could ask voters if they are who they say they are, or would that also suppress the vote?
Remember how the politicians insisted the nation shift to more reliable "electronic ballots" after Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in 2000 - Help America Vote Act.
I think it's great that now they want to go back to paper, because, I guess, nothing like the Butterfly Ballot Fiasco could ever happen again, right?
What is the point of the first amendment if not to protect speech some find offensive?
Also, I find it interesting that his attackers complain that âoethey knowâ Trump wants to stifle free speech (but never has), and at the same time support outlets like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook that ACTUALLY stifle free speech! Kinda like saying Trump committed treasonous acts by being willing to accept free dirt on Hillary, but Hillary and the DNC actually paying Russians (through intermediaries like Fusion GPS and a law firm) is nothing more than straight-up opposition research.
Ajit Pai wants FTC to enforce net neutrality, not FCC - itâ(TM)s actually a decent proposal, but because it was yet another example of Trump tearing down another flimsy set of regulations based on nothing more than the the whim of the last Administration the left goes bonkers.
So your argument is that Trump simply had better Russians than Hillary?
We have bank records that prove Hillary paid Russians for information against her opponent Trump, but thatâ(TM)s OK I guess, itâ(TM)s only a crime when Russians offer (but fail to produce) free information against Hillary - right?
Assuming Dodger stadium is limited to one event per day, and there are only a finite number of days per year (365 or 366), with a daily capacity of 1,500 passengers per day, and assuming full-capacity, every day, with every passenger booking round-trip passage, that gives you:
1,500 passengers x 2 trips (round-trip) x 366 days = annual revenue of about $1,098,000 with a one-dollar fare.
How can this venture support itself on a million dollars/year? Add in the reality that Dodger Stadium probably hosts fewer than 120 events/year (81 regular season home games, plus other events no more often than about once a week in my estimation), and annual revenue comes to $360,000/year.
How many jobs can this one-third to one-half million dollar enterprise support AND cover operating expenses?
Obviously Musk is looking for a showcase project to run at a loss to win larger, more lucrative projects going forward, and that's OK, but what happens when Musk no longer needs this showcase project?
Attendance IS "200% of last year's" is equivalent to "a 100% increase over last year" or, in this example, "attendance is 100% higher than last year's".
According to previous poster, saying "attendance is 100% higher this year" means this year's attendance equals last year's attendance - simply incorrect.
Is as relevant as saying she won a bake-off orbeautycontest - each are equally irrelevant when electing a US President, something a two-time veteran of her husband's campaign should have known... But I suspect she found herself drawn to the huge crowds and easy donations on the west coast she choose to ignore MI, WI, PA and a few other states in the general election.
The license plate scanner network was not built for detecting welfare fraud, the welfare fraud investigators are tapping into the pre-existing LPR system to strengthen their cases. Should they not take advantage of a system already in place?
Citation? For example, a rouge employee at a private facility trying to file bogus welfare claims for immigrant children wouldnâ(TM)t really be something you could hold the president accountable for, unless you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
You mean 50 years, and actually after steadily rising under the last administration, the number of Americans on welfare/snap benefits is shrinking under the current administration, in large part because of record-low unemployment figures across several demographic groups (blacks, women, Latino, etc.).
The extraordinary efforts described in the article are database dips into someone elseâ(TM)s database for data collected by someone elseâ(TM)s LPRs - in reality, they are essentially free.
So all this talk of exceptional measures to combat welfare fraud has no relevance here, since the program essentially costs nothing, and has to be individually requested/justified on a case-by-case basis.
Geez, you only had go back to the Clinton administration in the last century to find someone to blame for a California state policy you donâ(TM)t like that started some 15 years after Gingrich left office...
Slashdot Mirror
We wnt through the same silliness when Al Gore lost the electoral college but won the popular vote - it was called the Helping America Vote Act of 2003, which is effectively being repealed because HRC lost in 2016.
Nope. Not mentioned in the Constitution at all. The only thing there is how the Electoral College votes.
Maybe expand your gaze over to the Helping America Vote Act - it requires that any state that accepts federal money implement their elections as laid out in the HAVA law.
The Helping America Vote Act says any state that accepts federal funding must run their elections in a certain manner.
Pretty sure every state accepts federal funding, but hey, it's a choice - they don't have to!
This was the typical over-reaction to Al Gore winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote, now we're talking about reversing that because Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote... Apparently, when a Democrat loses, the logical response is to completely up-end the voting process?
And nowhere does it give the federal government the authority to mandate how states run their elections.
Yes, and no.
The federal government very definitely requires that states only allow citizens vote on FEDERAL OFFICES, but are silent on state and local votes, which allows several localities to allow anyone, citizen or not, to vote on local school board and other elections. See the Helping Americans Vote Act.
Voter fraud is not an issue. First, I need to define this term. Voter fraud is when a person votes or attempts to vote as somebody different than who they are. It is hard to imitate a different voter and not very efficient. Republicans have been trying to prove massive voter fraud for many years, at least since George W. Bush has been in office. I don't have exact statistics handy, but there has been less that two people per state per year. It is not a problem.
Remember the poll worker that voted on behalf of her friends and family members, insisted it wasn't actually a crime, was convicted of voter fraud, and then was cheered as a hero at a democrat political rally?
Driver's licenses are legal proof of identity.
Identity does not equal citizenship, how will we assemble the list of citizens eligible to vote without, at some point, checking their citizenship?
How long before an election is long enough for you to stop playing the racist card and allow the adults to discuss a solution to the problem?
I'd suggest at least 18 months before the next election - but oh, wait, we hold them every year, shoot.
You are fucking right everyone should have a federal ID to vote.
You're right, Mr. Colorful Language, it makes no sense to require the same identification to vote as is required to enter a federal building or cash a check when someone wants to vote - it's not nearly important as either of those two activities.
I feel that we first need proof that in-person voter fraud is a big enough problem to require a solution that can potentially disenfranchise vulnerable populations.
And how, without checking state-issued ID do you propose we determine that? Maybe we could ask voters if they are who they say they are, or would that also suppress the vote?
Remember how the politicians insisted the nation shift to more reliable "electronic ballots" after Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in 2000 - Help America Vote Act.
I think it's great that now they want to go back to paper, because, I guess, nothing like the Butterfly Ballot Fiasco could ever happen again, right?
What is the point of the first amendment if not to protect speech some find offensive?
Also, I find it interesting that his attackers complain that âoethey knowâ Trump wants to stifle free speech (but never has), and at the same time support outlets like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook that ACTUALLY stifle free speech! Kinda like saying Trump committed treasonous acts by being willing to accept free dirt on Hillary, but Hillary and the DNC actually paying Russians (through intermediaries like Fusion GPS and a law firm) is nothing more than straight-up opposition research.
Ajit Pai wants FTC to enforce net neutrality, not FCC - itâ(TM)s actually a decent proposal, but because it was yet another example of Trump tearing down another flimsy set of regulations based on nothing more than the the whim of the last Administration the left goes bonkers.
So your argument is that Trump simply had better Russians than Hillary?
We have bank records that prove Hillary paid Russians for information against her opponent Trump, but thatâ(TM)s OK I guess, itâ(TM)s only a crime when Russians offer (but fail to produce) free information against Hillary - right?
The California bullet train is projected to cost as much as $98BN for 119 Ike's of track - that's a bit more than $50M/mile.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...
Assuming Dodger stadium is limited to one event per day, and there are only a finite number of days per year (365 or 366), with a daily capacity of 1,500 passengers per day, and assuming full-capacity, every day, with every passenger booking round-trip passage, that gives you:
1,500 passengers x 2 trips (round-trip) x 366 days = annual revenue of about $1,098,000 with a one-dollar fare.
How can this venture support itself on a million dollars/year? Add in the reality that Dodger Stadium probably hosts fewer than 120 events/year (81 regular season home games, plus other events no more often than about once a week in my estimation), and annual revenue comes to $360,000/year.
How many jobs can this one-third to one-half million dollar enterprise support AND cover operating expenses?
Obviously Musk is looking for a showcase project to run at a loss to win larger, more lucrative projects going forward, and that's OK, but what happens when Musk no longer needs this showcase project?
"Higher" means it is over and above the base.
Attendance IS "200% of last year's" is equivalent to "a 100% increase over last year" or, in this example, "attendance is 100% higher than last year's".
According to previous poster, saying "attendance is 100% higher this year" means this year's attendance equals last year's attendance - simply incorrect.
"She won the majority vote"
Is as relevant as saying she won a bake-off orbeautycontest - each are equally irrelevant when electing a US President, something a two-time veteran of her husband's campaign should have known... But I suspect she found herself drawn to the huge crowds and easy donations on the west coast she choose to ignore MI, WI, PA and a few other states in the general election.
The license plate scanner network was not built for detecting welfare fraud, the welfare fraud investigators are tapping into the pre-existing LPR system to strengthen their cases. Should they not take advantage of a system already in place?
Why not relocate people that canâ(TM)t find work in a designated âoehigh unemployment area?â
Citation? For example, a rouge employee at a private facility trying to file bogus welfare claims for immigrant children wouldnâ(TM)t really be something you could hold the president accountable for, unless you suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
You mean 50 years, and actually after steadily rising under the last administration, the number of Americans on welfare/snap benefits is shrinking under the current administration, in large part because of record-low unemployment figures across several demographic groups (blacks, women, Latino, etc.).
The extraordinary efforts described in the article are database dips into someone elseâ(TM)s database for data collected by someone elseâ(TM)s LPRs - in reality, they are essentially free.
So all this talk of exceptional measures to combat welfare fraud has no relevance here, since the program essentially costs nothing, and has to be individually requested/justified on a case-by-case basis.
Geez, you only had go back to the Clinton administration in the last century to find someone to blame for a California state policy you donâ(TM)t like that started some 15 years after Gingrich left office...
When will California adopt similar diversity quotas for State Senators?
Also, I'm curious how this legislation defines "women"?
At a clock speed of 60 KHz? I guess that pretty much rules out a GUI, LOL...