Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place

Hosted by Showtalk

Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!

  • 4784
    MEMBERS
  • 113911
    MESSAGES
  • 29
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

MakoJo (makojo1)

From: MakoJo (makojo1)

Sep-7

>> Ranked choice = cheating! <<

That's just silly.  Without ranked-choice if you want to vote for a third party candidate, you might as stay home.  Your vote is meaningless.  With ranked-choice your vote can still count even if your candidate is eliminated.

Joe

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-7

Why the left shouldn't be crowing so loudly about that Sarah Palin defeat

By Monica Showalter
September 1, 2022

Well, the left has got one.  On Twitter and beyond, you've never heard such crowing.
 
According to Politico:
 
Democrat Mary Peltola has defeated Republican Sarah Palin in the special election for Alaska's vacant House seat, a big upset over the former governor in the state's first election under ranked-choice voting.
 
Peltola, a former state legislator who will become Alaska's first indigenous member of Congress, defeated a special election field that included Palin and another Republican, Nick Begich III. The Democrat finished first in the initial tally and then won enough second-choice votes from Begich's supporters to see off Palin, who had former President Donald Trump's endorsement and previously won a statewide campaign in 2006.
 
That 60% of the state could vote for a Republican, yet the seat should nevertheless go to a Democrat, is bitter news indeed for the Republicans.  Ranked-choice voting, which in Alaska was introduced in this election, where the voters whose candidate is eliminated get to vote a second time, through their second choices, pretty well left enough holes for the Democrats to walk away with the seat.
 
In Palin's case, some voters didn't add a second choice to their ballot, and others voted for the Democrat as a second choice.  Enough voters didn't check Palin to make the slate victorious for the Republicans, which is where the problem came in for Palin.
 
There's a lot to be said about the "fairness" of this sort of rigging, which is also how San Francisco ended up with now-recalled Chesa Boudin as district attorney.  If one subset of voters gets two votes, why don't all of them?
 
It's doubly sad because Sarah Palin had been the frontrunner and was attempting to make a political comeback.  Palin had been unjustly hounded from office as governor in 2009, following her stint as John McCain's running mate in 2008, attracting grotesque amounts of demonizing attention from the left, as well as from sleazy McCain staffers leaking from inside the campaign.  Her detractors painted Palin as a hick and spread lies about her as corrupt, ignorant, and phony.  It was a demonization that could only be compared to what they later did to Donald Trump, which is to say, Palin was the proto-Trump.  Had she won, it would have been poetic justice. 
 
Instead, we got this:
 
It would have been very satisfying to have seen Palin victorious in this election just for that.  But in the end, she lost in what was effectively a three-way race, with the Republican vote split even as the Democrat vote was not.  Had it been a party-on-party contest, it likely would have come out another way, or if not, it would have been visible in the pre-election polls.  Instead, it was an ugly surprise.
 
For this to occur in a red-wave year was downright unsettling.
 
But perhaps it shouldn't be. Here's where the left starts to get ahead of themselves:
 
Really?  A blue wave?  Every last election, no matter what the color of the wave, has a few outliers.  When Scott Brown won his Senate seat in Massachusetts in 2010, taking the late Ted Kennedy's seat, there was lots of talk about a red wave then, and broadly speaking, there was one nationwide.  But Brown ended up getting booted from that Massachusetts seat by 2013 in favor of Elizabeth Warren.  Brown may have looked like a bellwether, but in Massachusetts, he was an outlier.
 
And it may well be the case for Peltola.
 
If the GOP can take this defeat as a wake-up call, they'll learn the value of not allowing the GOP vote to be split despite taking 60% of the vote.  They'll prepare ahead of time and not allow two candidates to run for the same seat against one Democrat.
 
What's more, that might happen sooner rather than later.
 
Palin gets another swing at Peltola and her leftist agenda in November, and if the greenie-agenda pain is strong enough, and the Bidenflation high enough, there should be flip-back, same as happened in Massachusetts.  Alaska is a pretty libertarian state in orientation, and there are a lot of libertarians who are liberal on abortion, which is what was said to have driven the Democrats.  But inflation in general tops that as an issue for voters according to most polls, particularly with
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-7

A Declaration Of Dissolution: Wisconsin Supreme Court Fires The Starting Gun

Bob Maistros
August 1, 2022

“If elections are conducted outside of the law, the people have not conferred their consent on the government. Such elections are unlawful, and their results are illegitimate.” — Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, writing for the Wisconsin Supreme Court majority in Teigen v. Wisconsin Elections Commission
 
Acourt of law has finally confirmed it: The 2020 election was “illegitimate.” And all the demands for sufficient evidence of voter fraud to reverse the outcome were a red herring.
 
The truly dispositive factor, as stated by a Republican Wisconsin state legislator in a March hearing and affirmed in the opinion: “If a vote is cast in an illegal process, it’s an illegal vote!”
 
The reasons for legislatively enacted absentee ballot protections are clear. Justice Bradley quotes the Wisconsin Legislature’s rationale: “(P)revent the potential for fraud or abuse … overzealous solicitation of absent electors who may prefer not to participate in an election … undue influence on an absent elector … or other similar abuses.”
 
And that’s exactly what unlawfully relaxed provisions occasioned in Wisconsin:
 
Nearly 3,600 trips by 138 “mules” to drop boxes to traffic 137,551 votes. (Trump lost the state by about 20,000.)
Illegal assistance with absentee ballots by nursing home staff to residents, some with dementia.
 
“Zuckerbucks” exploiting these changes to “purchase Joe Biden an additional 65,222 votes, without which Donald Trump would have won the state by 44,540 votes.”
But again, per Wisconsin’s Supremes, Donald Trump didn’t have to prove the existence or extent of fraud, only deviation from legislative schemes. Because – nota bene! – the votes’ unlawful nature is the proof.
 
The same “pollution” of the “integrity of the results,” as the Court expressed it, occurred in:
 
Michigan: Unlawfully imposed rules for validating absentee signatures and a refusal to comply with an enactment allowing access to drop-box video surveillance.
 
Georgia: The Stacey Abrams settlement that, as a U.S. Supreme Court amicus curiae brief demonstrated, ran afoul of schemes regulating – what else? – drop boxes and signature identification.
 
Pennsylvania: A state Supreme Court decree involving absentee deadlines that, per U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, “squarely alter(ed) an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature.”
 
As Texas and 17 other states argued in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, these jurisdictions’ “significant and unconstitutional irregularities … cumulatively preclude(d) knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election.”
 
Yet observers left and right shrug off the Badger State ruling’s significance. Slate sniffs, “Without a shred of evidence” (to repeat, irrelevant) “the court has thrown its weight behind a dangerous conspiracy theory” (unlawful votes are no “conspiracy”) “that helped to fuel the Jan. 6 insurrection.” (That again.)
 
And sort of rightward, the Wall Street Journal trots out the usual dismissive arguments:
 
“Mr. Trump … lagged the state’s GOP congressmen by 63,547. Split tickets by Republicans more than explain why Mr. Trump fell short.”
 
Really? Trump had 95% approval among Republicans in October 2020. Yet GOP congressmen ran ahead of him?
 
“Drop boxes were an unlawful delivery method, but if real Wisconsinites put real ballots into them … that isn’t ‘fraud.’”
 
Again, fraud isn’t dispositive – illegal votes are. Outside anti-fraud provisions, how can anyone know who deposited the ballots?
 
“Bill Barr told a podcast recently that Mr. Trump was duly warned to get solid lawyers working to defend business-as-usual voting processes. … ‘He ignored that advice. He did not have a legal team prepared to go and fight around the country. So a lot of these, bending of the play
...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
MakoJo (makojo1)

From: MakoJo (makojo1)

Sep-7

>> That's called voter cheating/fraud by any other name!!! <<

Again, that's just silly.  In Alaska the Democrat got more votes initially.  If the folks who initially voted for Begich had chosen Palin as their #2 choice, Palin would have won the election even though the Democrat led.  Would you then say that the Repubs cheated and stole the election?  It wasn't the ranked-choice system per se that decided the election, it was the votes cast by the voters.  Without ranked-choice voting, those folks would have disenfranchised.

We don't vote for paties in elections, we vote for people.  And the folks in that district overwhelmingly voted that they would rather be represented by the Democrat than by Palin.

You've said that ranked-choice voting is cheating.  Can you explain why you think that?

Joe

MakoJo (makojo1)

From: MakoJo (makojo1)

Sep-7

WALTER784 said:

Had it been a party-on-party contest, it likely would have come out another way,

Again, we don't vote for parties, we vote for people.  Many Begich votes chose the Democrat as their #2 choice.  In a two person race, I believe that the folks who voted for Begich but chose the Democrat as #2 would have voted for the Democrat to begin with.  Why do I say that?  Because it's on those voters' ballots in black and white that they would rather have the Democrat in office than Palin.  They had the chance to choose Begich #1 and Palin #2.  But they didn't. 

Joe

Joe

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-7

MakoJo (makojo1) said...

>> That's called voter cheating/fraud by any other name!!! <<

Again, that's just silly.  In Alaska the Democrat got more votes initially.  If the folks who initially voted for Begich had chosen Palin as their #2 choice, Palin would have won the election even though the Democrat led.  Would you then say that the Repubs cheated and stole the election?  It wasn't the ranked-choice system per se that decided the election, it was the votes cast by the voters.  Without ranked-choice voting, those folks would have disenfranchised.

We don't vote for paties in elections, we vote for people.  And the folks in that district overwhelmingly voted that they would rather be represented by the Democrat than by Palin.

You've said that ranked-choice voting is cheating.  Can you explain why you think that?

Joe

Quite simply... and using your explanation in doing so...

Your statement >>> If the folks who initially voted for Begich had chosen Palin as their #2 choice, Palin would have won the election even though the Democrat led.<<< is a straw hat explanation.

60% voted for Palin for starters.

Secondly, your claim that had they chosen Palin as their #2 choice, Palin would have won is incredulously stupid to say the least. 60% chose her as #1 so choosing her as #2 would have allowed her to win #1 makes as much sense as a screen door in a submarine!!!

They chose her as #1 and thus she should have been #1. Should she not be #1, then cheating occurred.

Had they chosen her as #2 for her to win only exacerbates the audacity of the cheating. 

If you chose somebody for #1, you expect them to win, current wild-arsed-rating system says that only those who chose her as #2 will allow her to win is a bats##t crazy lazy attempt at explaining why fraud is not fraud!!!

FWIW

MakoJo (makojo1)

From: MakoJo (makojo1)

Sep-7

>> 60% voted for Palin for starters. <<

They did not.  In the initial vote she won 30.9% of the vote to 40% for the Democrat.  If she had won 60% of the initial vote, then ranked-choice would have never kicked in.

Joe

WALTER784
Staff

From: WALTER784

Sep-7

With all the fraud that's going on, that's going to be hard to prove one way or the other!!!

FWIW

Msg 5701.1157 deleted
MakoJo (makojo1)

From: MakoJo (makojo1)

Sep-7

Got it.

Democrat wins - FRAUD

Republican wins - Will of the People.

So simple.

Joe

TOP