Your confusion over my question is perhaps justified.

I'll rephrase: "Why should we believe elections in the United States aren't fixed?"

Pointless discussion - essentially you are asking people to prove a negative just to start an arguement in which, no doubt, you will bash the US....BOR-ING!

It's a crazy confusing system that eats up time, resources and cash. That's not the problem in itself but when it produces candidates like Bush and the current bunch of right-wing evangelical lunatics is it worth all the effort. How much would it cost to get an intelligent, intellectual Republican as a candidate, or is that a contradiction in terms?
As for the Democrats remember Dukakis, if he was the answer, what was the question?

Annnnd...so it begins. The trolls take the bait and run! Go nigee, go!

"essentially you are asking people to prove a negative"

No, I'm asking people to prove a positive - that American elections are trustworthy.

Wrong - Your premise is that they are corrupt...so no matter what I say, your reply will be, "Prove they aren't corrupt...you can't prove it..." which of course is true, because the very nature of a properly fixed election is that it is not detectable that it was fixed...thus you are asking us to prove a negative...and then giving troll bait to morons like nigee that will use any excuse to fill the void with vile partisan hatred....<sigh...>

"Wrong - Your premise is that they are corrupt."

I have not stated a premise; I have asked a question.

"because the very nature of a properly fixed election is that it is not detectable that it was fixed."

So you believe that American elections are fixable, and that the corruption is not detectable? Does this mean your answer is that it is impossible to guarantee the integrity of an American election?

"Why should anyone believe in the integrity of the American electorate?" The question presupposes that you believe it does not have integrity, and that it must be proved that it does. You are NOT starting from the premise that it has integrity and that someone should prove it does not. You are starting from a negative premise.

krellin is learning basic elements of logic?

Not bad, sir, not bad.

Of course it is impossible to prove they have integrity -- because, by definition, if there is one illegal vote out of a hundred million, then you will no doubt argue there is no integrity.

I would argue that "strict integrity" is irrelevant, in the same way that our criminal justice system is flawed. (innocent until proven guilty means that some guilty get off because brurden of proof is not there) We make allowances, and try to err on the "correct" side of things (as opposed to throwing innocent people in to prison where the philosophy reversed - guilty until innocent - which is what the IRS does, by the way....)

From a statistical standpoint, given the average number of voters, I don't believe it is possible to throw an election. Does that mean there is no cheating? Of course not...it's just not in significant numbers to effect the government make-up overall.

That our government sucks in the opinion of some is not because the process is "flawed" per se...it is because the American electorate is mind-boggling stupid and ill-informed....That's not a lack of integrity in the system as defined on paper.

krellin is making me hard right now.

If you personally feel the system isn't transparent, why don't you try and get a position as an election judge? You get to see the voting results tape - results are posted precinct by precinct online, so you can see later if the results from your tape match up with those posted. That ensures voting integrity in your precinct, and you can assume that at least one person per precinct does the same thing elsewhere.

Generally, election judges will often be advocates of a candidate interested in making sure their candidate gets the votes they deserve, so the above assumption is a safe assumption to make. Additionally, the fact that there are usually advocates of candidates from both parties present (it is required to have GOP election judges, as well as Dem election judges - though there isn't an absolute guarantee the judge is actually a member of that party), you can be assured that vigilant eyes are making sure that no apparent voting fraud is taking place - this generally only comes into question in large cities, where it may be difficult to find enough enthusiastic, transparent judges to cover both sides of the isle.

You can also take into account that modern polling has become increasingly accurate, and that elections (especially general ones, more so than primaries) do usually reflect the momentum and results reported in polls. So, if the election system does in fact lack integrity, then you assume that *all* major polling groups are involved in some sort of conspiracy, or are flat out all inaccurate in a manner that coincidentally reflects a rigged system.

Of course the system isn't flawless - as I said before, you can certainly have issues with transparency, especially in large cities, that can lead to voting fraud. But you can be assured that the system is, on the whole, transparent, and quite an accomplishment for such a massive population of humans voting.

The only way you could significantly influence the outcome of an election is to have the media in your pocket. For example, I believe Ron Paul would be well on his way to the Republican nod if the media gave him any airtime.

Has any national election in any country at any time had "integrity" if integrity is defined as some fictional ideal of perfection?
I don't think I've seen a meaningful election in my lifetime at almost any level of government that hasn't had irregularities of some kind, but I'm comfortable in the real world of human beings and the societies they create,
I never waste my time comparing the real world to some fictional idea of perfection.

Instead I spend my time making money to do what I want in my life as long as I keep the socialist leeches at bay with accountant and tax attorneys (who are worth every penny by the way).

A penny that goes to a tax attorney instead of a freeloader is a penny well spent.

Yawn. Do you think being a caricature of a rich prick is in any way interesting?

It's not just the system/process that is flawed, it's also the quality of the people. Who was that idiotic woman standing as running mate for the Republicans last time, a complete and utter idiot, a buffoon. How can you take the Republican party serious when they have candidates like that.
Surely if you had someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett standing for the White House they would walk it because they are credible and intelligent. The USA has some of the top universities in the world, so where are all of these high calibre graduates, obviously not in US politics.

I agree with krellin...

+1 to every krellin comment.

Yeah, really. krellin is on a roll.

@ NigeeBaby

I'm not a big fan of candidates that graduated from some high-caliber university. I'll take a military officer over a Harvard grad any day. I don't want some president who only knows how to lead a country *in theory*. Ideas that work on a chalkboard in an Ivy League lecture hall almost never work in reality.

If I could appoint the next President, I would pick a relatively ordinary person with slightly above-average intelligence, a military background (preferably a long career as a commissioned officer), a humble background, and a generally conservative philosophy with a libertarian stance on social views except for abortion. I've always believed that an ordinary American would be the best president.

I just wanted to say that I was the first to state that krellin was sane when he came back from his hiatus. And I have had the *pleasure* of playing in a game with him where everyone agreed to eliminate him and then draw, and he accused me of cheating in the forum.

Please stay sane, krellin.

Wouldn't the fact that we have competitive elections and incumbents that are constantly being upended be enough? Are you pointing to the fat that the two major parties are the only ones really competitive? Perhaps you should look at the first past the post system. It doesn't have to do with integrity. This thread is idiotic, and I have to agree with Krellin and TC. Coming from someone who probably defends farcical Iranian elections, this is quite rich (or was this in reference to attacks on your precious adopted motherland in the first place.)

Krellin is still, without a doubt insane, I can post the PMs to prove it. All you need to do is back him into the corner and he erupts. Dont think that will happen here because he actually has a point for a change.

Reasonable doubt, SC. Reasonable doubt.
Or innocent until proven guilty.

Please don't post his PMs here. :)

I'm reminded of when I was in Japan the first time, on study abroad. My homestay family had a teenage daughter who was studying world history and asked me why Nixon resigned, since it was just glossed over in her textbook. So I explained the brass tacks of the whole deal, and she was astonished that anything really happened to him because of it, since that would be pretty much not even worth reporting in Japan. Japan's a pretty advanced nation. And what we consider high political scandal wouldn't even be a blip. To say nothing about places like India, where election rigging is done incredibly overtly according to my Indian friends. The United States may not have a perfect system, and in fact no system will ever be perfect. But it does have one of the better systems as far as protecting against fraud.

Agreed with krellin.

@Gunfighter: A president needs to be well-informed and intelligent enough to make decisions for the country. Not sure your average army officer necessarily possesses those characteristics. I'm not saying they never do; there have been many successful general-turned-presidents, just saying that an Ivy-league candidate is more likely to possess the intellectual rigour needed to weigh the many issues at hand.
Not going to comment on what stances your President should take. Your choice of president, your choice of what he believes in.

** As to my sanity...thanks for the comments, zultar. But, I'll tell you this, my posts in previous times, wile perhaps more belligerent, tended to be of the same philosophy. That being said, there was anotehr thread this past week talking about what is "natural", and I tried to take a *very rational, NON-judgemental* approach to trying to answer the poster's question about what is natural, particularly in regards to homosexuality. I made *zero* moral references, but simply tried to answer the question from a "scientific" standpoint.

This, sadly, has been the norm on this site....that anyone that is not a flaming liberal or anything-goes kind of guy is viewed as an hysterical moron. It's pathetic, actually, that the "liberals"...who are all for freedom of thinking, etc, are so often the one's screaming the loudest to shut down free thought...

Anyway - thanks for the comments on my comments...

As for who *should* be President...why would anyone want an "average" person for the President of the "free world"....I work with a lot of average human beings. I would not let most average humans near much in my life, let alone the controls to the country!

I find is sad/distrurbing/ridiculous that that some people do not want the best of the best for their President - people with a proven track record of success.

I am **NOT** endorsing anyone, but if you are a business person, and you look at a Romney, who is wildly successful at what he set out to do (i.e. make a hell of a lot of money) HOW is that held against him? By all accounts, whether you like how he made his money or not, he worked the system for what it was worth *very* successfully. Somehow, though, to a great number of Americans being skilled and successful is a negative??? <scratches head...>

I just don't get it.

Yeaah....we should go scoop some bum up off a street corner and coronate him. Or...I don't know...maybe a mob organizer that knows nothing about tax policy, making a payroll, international relations, etc...but he puts together a good activist mod. Oh...wait...we have that now. He's *stifling* the economy at best...damaging it and American prestige at worst....

(let the beatings begin...I can take it!)

The American electoral system does have a lot of integrity. The whole Watergate debacle in many countries would be considered a minor issue, but in the USA served to tarnish the presidency for years afterward. I think it's a great sign that we have yet to have a president removed from office, despite the many opportunities to do so.

But I do understand OP's point. People like Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, and others are ridiculous. But these candidates are a larger systemic problem with the nomination and party structure in this country--and it's probably on the verge of change. I would argue that given the changes in nomination and party structure in the past few decades, the identity of USA politics is in a state of confusion and possibly great change.

"...People like Palin, Gingrich, Bachmann, and others are ridiculous..." sigh....Are any of them on the Presidential ballot, you idiot?

You know what's ridiculous, Obama, Hillary Clinton, Biden....right?

Or is it only Republican candidates that are ridiculous....? Obama, who never had *any* accomplishments in government other than to vote "Present" a lot and had a couple of books ghost-written for him....Hillary, who's claim to fame was she was married to Bill...Biden, the best of the three, can't say two sentences without falling all over his words....Good God, have some perspective, man!

The problem isn't with the candidates, it is with the moronic electorate! the Republican party started with about 15 candidates...it is the idiotic, lazy, ill-informed public that narrowed it down to this field **with their votes** and lack of support for good candidates.

All the good candidates have eschewed politics because they aren't corrupt and have ability politicians lack.
It's just like law school, C students become judges.
Those without real ability become politicians.

@ Gobbledydook

"A president needs to be well-informed and intelligent enough to make decisions for the country. Not sure your average army officer necessarily possesses those characteristics."

US Military officers are trained to make decisions. The President of the United States' primary responsibility is making decisions that uphold the Presidential Oath of Office, which is very similar to the Uniformed Services Oath of Office.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of intellectual geniuses that have no leadership capability and no decision-making skills. Do you want a person like that running the country?

"just saying that an Ivy-league candidate is more likely to possess the intellectual rigour needed to weigh the many issues at hand."

Does the president really have to make intellectual decisions so complex that they require an Ivy League degree? I would argue no. Many presidents had no formal education and even more had no college education. Harry Truman was the last president to not graduate from college. Do you think Obama's decisions are any more complex than Truman's decisions?

Going back to military credentials, a military officer is formally trained to make complex tactical decisions in the heat of a firefight, and a general is trained to make complex strategic decisions in the heat of a world war. An Ivy League grad is instructed on how to look at an issue from an *abstract*, *theoretical* perspective. Military officers deal with reality. Ivy League grads deal with fantasy.

"Not going to comment on what stances your President should take. Your choice of president, your choice of what he believes in."

Thank you very much for recognizing that my post was apolitical.

@ krellin

"As for who *should* be President...why would anyone want an "average" person for the President of the "free world"....I work with a lot of average human beings. I would not let most average humans near much in my life, let alone the controls to the country!

I find is sad/distrurbing/ridiculous that that some people do not want the best of the best for their President - people with a proven track record of success."

Because "average" people are the best people. Look up any given historical figure that you admire. Chances are that they were an ordinary person that was placed in an extraordinary situation and shined.

You must have very little faith in humanity or don't know any good people. I would trust any person I know of a conservative political stance and good moral character to be a decent president.

I'm not trying to get all humanistic here, but I just want to point out that there's no such thing as a political Superman. Everyone has flaws, everyone has something in their past that doesn't look good in an attack ad, and no one is perfect.

Never said I wanted a political superman, and I was speaking in hyperbole when I said I wouldn't take ANYONE I know....but walk through Wal-Mart and point to someone you want to be President....because those are some average freaking Americans there...

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

I also agree that the President should NOT consider himself a genius in every area (like Al Gore tried to present himself)....I would rather have an intelligent, humble man that knows how to surround himself with advisers that are brilliant and successful in their area of expertise. and by that, I do NOT mean from Acedemia, which is generally made up of people that have never worked it the real world. (i.e. Ever look at Obama's fucked up staff of advisors? Lot's of theory and education....NOT a whole lot of successful business people...and look at the fucked up mess it's KEPT us in...)

"Many presidents had no formal education and even more had no college education"

This is so completely misleading it is laughable, but coming from Gunfighter, expected. 9 presidents did not go to college. Many of these came in the time where formalized apprenticeship was an alternative to schooling (Washington, Van Buren, Fillmore, Lincoln, Cleveland) three were initially unelected (Truman, Johnson) and three were military heroes in a time where the military was considered an alternative education to university and apprenticeship (Taylor, Jackson).

All of these were president in the time when the presidency was less powerful and far less complex with the exception of Truman. To make the argument that nine presidents have not "gone to college" and therefore the presidency is obviously user friendly is inane. Meanwhile I would love you to list your "many" presidents who had "no formal education"

Anyone who automatically crowns or rejects a candidate because of where s/he did or didn't go to school is being incredibly foolish. Listen to the candidate and their ideas and judge based on your evaluation of their theoretical soundness and practical applicability. Assuming either that an Ivy Grad is automatically more intelligent or competent than a non-Ivy Grad (they aren't) or automatically an ivory tower nutcase entirely out of touch with reality (they aren't) is just inexcusably stupid and intellectually lazy.

Amen Eden!

@ krellin

I wouldn't consider Wal-Mart to be a place to find the "best" average Americans, unless one has a very low standard of "average".

"I also agree that the President should NOT consider himself a genius in every area (like Al Gore tried to present himself)....I would rather have an intelligent, humble man that knows how to surround himself with advisers that are brilliant and successful in their area of expertise. and by that, I do NOT mean from Acedemia, which is generally made up of people that have never worked it the real world."

That's what I'm trying to say. "Intelligent" does not necessarily mean that he has impressive academic credentials.

@ SantaClausowitz

"9 presidents did not go to college."

That's 20%, which justifies the use of the word "many" in my opinion. My point is that intelligence is not necessarily proven by formal academic credentials. Some of the smartest people I know barely slipped through high school.

"To make the argument that nine presidents have not "gone to college" and therefore the presidency is obviously user friendly is inane"

That's not the argument I'm trying to make. The office of the presidency is probably one of the toughest jobs in the world. See above: My point is that intelligence is not...

@ President Eden

"Anyone who automatically crowns or rejects a candidate because of where s/he did or didn't go to school is being incredibly foolish. Listen to the candidate and their ideas and judge based on your evaluation of their theoretical soundness and practical applicability."

I agree with that, but military service is a huge plus in my book when I'm picking a candidate to support.

@Gunfighter....uhhh....exactly WHAT do you consider to be an average American? Maybe it's time to remove your head from the elitest sand in which you have buried it and take a *real* look at America, buddy. Why the hell do you think there are Wal-Mart and Meijer's and such in every semi-big town across the country?

Please definde for me what an average American is if it isn't some poor shmuck that lives paycheck to paycheck because he never *really* made it in this world, and therefore shops at the bog box grociers to save enough dimes to buy his weekend booze...

I suggest you look up a few statistic, my friend, and stop watching so much TV.

This thread is a fascinating study in political psychology. Anyone else notice that krellin got a tone of +1s and kudos for his emotional and factless "how dare you criticize the government elections!" response to my question, but the one rational attempt to answer my question with facts - Nelhybel's - was ignored?

It reminds me a lot of this study:

http://www.sightline.org/research/sust_toolkit/communications-strategy/drewwestenresearch

Except substituting loyalty to the American system of elections for loyalty to a particular party.

(sounds like Nelhybel has actually worked as an election judge. It is Nel, and not the imperial stormtroopers around the globe, that is protecting the freedom of the American people. Thanks for your service, which I imagine was poorly paid if it paid at all.)

I have seen plenty of fishy elections in my time. I've written about some of them on this forum. And the first time I tried to observe my precinct, I was kicked out by the California equivalent of the election judge (for you fur'ners following this thread, each state sets its own election laws and processes - and every state is different).

This thread was in part inspired by all of the funny business in the Republican primary the last two months, from the 'discrepancies' in the Iowa caucus which resulted in the resignation of the Iowa GOP chief, the Clark County Nevada results taking three days to report (and when the smoke cleared, Ron Paul got more or less the same number of votes he did in 2008 - the only state where Paul didn't double his vote totals, which is absolutely crazy. I've been to Las Vegas a few times the last few months, there are Ron Paul bumper stickers and signs everywhere you look), the cancellation of the Maine caucuses in strongly pro-Ron Paul counties and the refusal to count all the votes, the media declaring the Virgin Islands for Mitt Romney even though Ron Paul got more votes, etc.

I was hoping someone would give me a reason to believe in elections. But aside from Nel, all I got was "how dare you criticize the elections, nothing can be perfect!". Perfection isn't what I'm looking for; I recognize that elections are complex procedures and mistakes will be made. But considering the stakes - control of a government that can destroy whole nations with the press of a button, among other things - this is something that should be taken a lot more seriously than it is. The fact that most people flippantly dismissed my question tells me the integrity of the process isn't being seriously considered by and large, and simply taken as a given which no sane person could question - which I think is very frightening.

How many of us can even describe how the election process works where you live, from the time you drop your ballot in the box to the time it's reported on TV? Are your votes counted there at the precinct and phoned in to the county elections official, or are they shipped off to be fed into a central tabulating computer somewhere by one or two people you don't know in a locked room?

A handful of specific replies (sorry, have to catch a plane later and my time is short):

"Wouldn't the fact that we have competitive elections and incumbents that are constantly being upended be enough?"

No, it would not. Even in the 'earth-shattering' turnover of the 2010 congressional election, only 13% of incumbents who stood for reelection lost their races. Usually it's over 95%. Here in California, it's over 95% even though the state legislature has an approval rating in the single digits.

"Perhaps you should look at the first past the post system. It doesn't have to do with integrity. "

I'm all in favor of alternative election systems. But it does have to do with integrity - if the process can't be trusted in any case, why would it matter how the winner is selected?

"The United States may not have a perfect system, and in fact no system will ever be perfect. But it does have one of the better systems as far as protecting against fraud."

I heard a radio interview of Jimmy Carter after he'd been called in to look at the 2000 election. He said he was absolutely shocked by the lack of transparency and bad procedures in American elections that he discovered. He said the problems were so serious that his non-profit which guaranteed fairness of third world elections would never sign off on an American election. Your post is largely what caused me to post in the first place; we hear so often that America is politically the most honest and perfect country in the world... but where is the proof? I'd like to see that proof if it exists.

Ever notice how Tolstoy specifically and, most likely, purposely misinterpreted my answers as some sort of blind kudos for the American election system?

FAIL!!!

Moron....maybe you should go back to about 3rd grade where they start with reading comprehension...then jump to Junior High where they actually teach you how the government works.

somewhere, pick up some statistics, as well, so that you can comprehend why it's damned near impossible to game the system...

Then take philosophy/logic so you can understand why you original question was BS i the first place, because you were asking people to prove a negative, you worthless twat.

Jimmy Carter is your source of information....Oh my....Good God...he's discovered the conspiracy! Tolstoy wins....

I thought you wanted fact based arguments?

Krellin, what voting system are they using where you are?

Electronic ballot....fill inteh bubble with a pencil and run it through the scan tron.

Of COURSE that can be rigged....if you believe the entire election system is rigged and that all the checks and balances are broken...

which goes back to my main point...you have come to this discussion (or started it) with the negative notion that the system is broken/corrupt/whatever and are asking us to prove otherwise, which is impossible.

So fine...you win. Does that make you feel better?

Bottom line is, the Federal Government generally reflects the will of the people, becuase you would have to rig an awful fucking lot of elections to turn the government over to the losing party by deceit. If you are THAT paranoid and delusional to think that can/has/could/would happen, then I truly pity you for what a paranoid, sad person you must be.

I have little faith in humanity,just to be clear. That also means I think that humanity, as a whole - even politicians - just aren't capable of pulling off that huge a conspiracy without SOMEONE ratting them out. It's just a ridiculous notion.

and individual election...particularly a local election....sure as hell coudl be thrown. and if they have the wrong mayor in your town, I could give a flying fuck adn it doesn't ratle my faith in the system overall.

In other words, there is a time when rational thought most overcome juvenile paranoid delusions...

"you would have to rig an awful fucking lot of elections to turn the government over to the losing party by deceit."

The 2000 presidential election was decided in Florida by what... a few hundred votes? That election could've been swung one way or another with one rigged precinct, let alone one county.

"So fine...you win. Does that make you feel better?"

No, it does not.

:-(

This country is fucked.

No, you fucking moron, the 2000 election was decided **50** fucking states. You are an ignorant jackass....buy into that media hype, fool.

The Florida election was messed up in a couple locations because the Democrat Party that ran those districts didn't know how to put together a decent ballot...and because the fucking ignorant masses that voted in those districts didn't know how to properly punch a ballot. So...again....it isnt the system that's broke...it's the fucking morons that vote that are the problem.

And besides, there are methods to resolve issues....in this case there was a recount....and eventually the system, based upon law and procedure, came to a conclusion. that you did not like the conclusion does not mean the system was faulty.

I'm done. krellin has wrecked this thread for me.