Reply to post: Re: Less than a week in the position...

President Donald Trump taken on by unlikely foe: Badass park rangers

Eric Olson

Re: Less than a week in the position...

... if one discounts California, Trump won the popular vote by approximately 1.7 million votes.

And if one discounts the states in which Clinton lost by a similar margin (Trump at 61% or more), it swings back to a +300,000 margin for Clinton. What's your point?

The Electoral College doesn't give bonus points for winning a state by more than a single vote. So the notion that illegal voting would be best served in states that a candidate would already win handily is idiotic. If you want to cast around for phantom anomalous voting, look in the states with razor thin margins where the polling prior to the election indicated a different result... which are the states that Trump won.

But the reality is that there wasn't a conspiracy, there wasn't illegal voting that swung an election, there was none of it. It's a canard clung to by a segment of the population that can't accept that someone might disagree with them. Is it hard to understand that a city with a large number of non-whites, naturalized citizens, and Hollywood types might lean away from Trump or the Republican party? Is there a reason you don't point out that in DC, only 4% of the voters chose Trump?

Let me ask you this question: Do you believe that every citizen that is legally allowed to vote should be able to? Do you believe that every citizen that is legally allowed to vote who wants to vote should be able to? Do you believe that every citizen that is legally allowed to vote who wants to vote should be provided every opportunity to vote?

If so, then you should stop bitching about dead people who aren't cleared from voter rolls (not the same as voting) and start bitching about how states are working hard to ensure that citizens who are legally allowed to vote are being turned away due to the government losing documentation (e.g. birth certificates), making it hard to register to vote, disenfranchising people for life well after they served the rest of their sentence for a crime, and overall trying to make voting more time consuming and expensive to cast a vote. It's the 21st century... why do we insist that each voter only has a single location in which they cast a ballot? This isn't a fucking stone being dropped in a clay jar.

And if you don't think the government has a place ensuring that all citizens legally allowed to vote are able to vote when they can vote, you don't actually give a fuck about vote integrity and fair elections; you only want to wield it as a weapon in an attempt to cling to power. And that behavior is why the US has tried to monitor elections overseas on not locally... it wasn't a problem in the US until someone thought voter restrictions could be used to win elections.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019