I voted.

I drove a friend to his polling place (he's got a broken foot) and there was a woman telling people if you voted one party for one candidate that all your other votes needed to be the same party. We stopped her cold and told her she was absolutely wrong. She didn't agree-we asked for someone in charge who relented but after we left other people posted on his FB page she was doing it again.

We called a local TV station, the local ACLU and the Board of Elections. They had received other reports as well.

My state solved this problem and the long line issue, we vote by mail, of course I did have to show the mail box my driver's license in order to address the fraudulent voter issue.

---

I voted.

I drove a friend to his polling place (he's got a broken foot) and there was a woman telling people if you voted one party for one candidate that all your other votes needed to be the same party. We stopped her cold and told her she was absolutely wrong. She didn't agree-we asked for someone in charge who relented but after we left other people posted on his FB page she was doing it again.

We called a local TV station, the local ACLU and the Board of Elections. They had received other reports as well.

My state solved this problem and the long line issue, we vote by mail, of course I did have to show the mail box my driver's license in order to address the fraudulent voter issue.

:-D

LOL!

---

#resist

I voted.

I drove a friend to his polling place (he's got a broken foot) and there was a woman telling people if you voted one party for one candidate that all your other votes needed to be the same party. We stopped her cold and told her she was absolutely wrong. She didn't agree-we asked for someone in charge who relented but after we left other people posted on his FB page she was doing it again.

We called a local TV station, the local ACLU and the Board of Elections. They had received other reports as well.

WOW. Blurf, Was this woman a county employee or just a citizen??

No idea....Ex-did you see D&C (our local newspaper) yesterday? It said that each party would have observers of each party at the polling sites. I think she was a GOP observer.

---

Right now (9:38pm), MSNBC reports Romey at 50%, Obama at 48%.

Electoral Votes:

Romney: 153 Obama: 158

---

Those of you that thought you it bad at the polls today, Check this out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/pennsylvania-voting-machine-switches-vote-obama-romney_n_2083015.html

According to MSNBC-- Obama 162, Romney 153. Romney has projected lost Penna. & Mich. Ohio is still too close to call but Obama is leading.

[edit] By the way the clip is from Penna. [/edit]

---

I don't buy computers, I build them!!

So. Can we please get to working on the issues without huge partisan obstruction???

---

#resist

So. Can we please get to working on the issues without huge partisan obstruction???

I hate to say it, but I think we will be stuck with stalemate. But.. it DOES beat moving backwards!!

---

Janice

I voted also. Big deal we lose who ever wins. They both suck bigtime. If anyone thinks the President can do antyhing your wrong. Hes a figure headlike a king or queen. The senate and congress rule the roost. And its not an oversight that I didnt Capitalize the names.

Four more years of nothing gets done because this counrty is so split we hate each other.
Four more years that we have more stinking partisan politics.

I sure as hell hope im wrong. But I doubt it.

I disagree, Jim. Supreme court nominees matter. The president gets to nominate them. Yes the senate still has to approve, but the president gets to send nominees. That is huge. There is a lot to consider when you give a person a powerful job, and let him or her keep it for life!!!

Also, back in high school I vaguely remember something in my history classes about only Congress having the power to declare war. Modern history seems to have bypassed this step. In light of this, I would say that who we elect for president matters quite a bit.

French newspaper Le Monde

"The Republican electoral strategy did not work. The victory of Barack Obama, first and foremost, belongs to his strategists, who, under the complex electoral system that is in place in the US, managed to garner enough electoral votes without their candidate securing a decisive lead in the popular vote."

So are they suggesting a technical win? I think when it was fairly obvious that the candidates were pretty even, people went for the devil they knew. Either way, not a landslide victory by any means.

The actual numbers were a win by the total votes by a small margin, and a substantial electoral college count win. It is the later that elects the president, and something the Republican party is extremely reluctant to discuss replacing.

It is an antiquated system that is badly out of date. But I doubt I will see it replaced in my lifetime.

---

Janice

The total votes so far are;

Obama 59,169,798 (51%)
Romney 56,729,542 (48.9%)

Majority 2,440,256 (2.1%)

So it is pretty close, With Florida to come and some states, like California, haven't counted the postal votes yet. Postal votes are likely to be military personnel and therefore would expect to be Republicans.

Why is it that the Cities vote one way and the rural communities all vote the other?

The cities are full of college educated liberals, the rural states are full of gun toting, country music loving Evangelists driving pickups.

Clearly the Electoral College does not truly represent the wishes of the people.

It's not intended to. The college, being based on the number of congresspeople (both Representatives and Senators) a state sends to DC is deliberately skewed to favor low population states. As the President is executive leader of a federation of states, it's the states that decide who will hold the office.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

It's not intended to. The college, being based on the number of congresspeople (both Representatives and Senators) a state sends to DC is deliberately skewed to favor low population states. As the President is executive leader of a federation of states, it's the states that decide who will hold the office.

Well that is one of your problems as I see it. Far too many State Governors think they are God Almighty and run their State like a private fiefdom or dictatorship. Whatever happened to democracy?

The USA isn't a democracy, it is a republic. Of course the liberal press wants everyone to think it is a democracy so they tout that.

---

Very interesting map of the results in the USA though. Both the western and Eastern states went Democrat, whilst nearly all of central USA went Republican. Why is it that the Cities vote one way and the rural communities all vote the other?

The coasts are full of high density cities and housing projects and the central USA is full of low density people. The difference being people who live in the cities want to be close enough to their neighbor so as to be in their stuff and the people not in the cities want to be far enough away no one is in their stuff. Simple really.

---

It's not intended to. The college, being based on the number of congresspeople (both Representatives and Senators) a state sends to DC is deliberately skewed to favor low population states. As the President is executive leader of a federation of states, it's the states that decide who will hold the office.

Well that is one of your problems as I see it. Far too many State Governors think they are God Almighty and run their State like a private fiefdom or dictatorship. Whatever happened to democracy?

The USA isn't a democracy, it is a republic. Of course the liberal press wants everyone to think it is a democracy so they tout that.

Oh jeez, that old chestnut? As far as I can tell it dates to one of the Federalist Papers authored by James Madison, where he describes a democracy in terms that would today be used to describe a direct democracy, and a republic in what today would be a representative democracy. I prefer Machiavelli's definition of republic, it's widely accepted around the world, and refers to a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch. Under Madison's definition, the UK is a republic, which is clearly nonsense. [ETA]Further reading[/ETA]

Chris, my apologies, when I said the states decide who will hold the office, I didn't mean to suggest that it was the state legislatures or executive, only that the electoral college is defined on the basis of state representation (which, to a large degree, means popular representation).

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The difference being people who live in the cities want to be close enough to their neighbor so as to be in their stuff and the people not in the cities want to be far enough away no one is in their stuff. Simple really.

I beg to differ, it seems to me more likely in small towns people can and will know a lot more about their neighbors stuff, as it's easier to keep track when there are so few. IMHO it's easier to be anonymous when there are a million people around you than when there are 10.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

The difference being people who live in the cities want to be close enough to their neighbor so as to be in their stuff and the people not in the cities want to be far enough away no one is in their stuff. Simple really.

I beg to differ, it seems to me more likely in small towns people can and will know a lot more about their neighbors stuff, as it's easier to keep track when there are so few. IMHO it's easier to be anonymous when there are a million people around you than when there are 10.

Bobby, you continue to describe a high density area, a city. Perhaps you haven't ever been to a real rural area. One where the neighbor is a mile away over a ridge line, not through the wall or across the driveway. In high density areas like cities the screaming match carries into the neighbor, it is in the face rubbed into the nose. True in a megalopolis you are less likely to go to the same coffee shop and church but the busybodies still gossip in a megalopolis.

---

"So it is pretty close, With Florida to come and some states, like California, haven't counted the postal votes yet. Postal votes are likely to be military personnel and therefore would expect to be Republicans.
"

In California several years ago people were given the option of becoming a "permanent absentee voter". This means a great many votes are postal.
They removed the requirements that just about mandated either military service, physical handicap, or other reasons why someone COULD NOT make it to the polls.

While most in military more than likely do vote absentee, it is far from the majority of the absentee ballots in California.

---

Janice

So it is pretty close, With Florida to come and some states, like California, haven't counted the postal votes yet. Postal votes are likely to be military personnel and therefore would expect to be Republicans.

Absentee voting has changed quite a bit in California. Years ago, yes, it was the elderly and military personnel who tended to vote absentee, and yes these two groups would tend to lean right. Now absentee ballots tend to include large numbers of crazy-busy people, especially those with nasty work commutes. It has been my experience, at least in the SF Bay area, that crazy-busy people lean left.

Edit: I'm sorry! I didn't realize Janice had already responded to this issue.

*snicker* no worries Angela.. I also enjoy the advantages of being able to tune everyone out 2 weeks before the election.

Still discouraged the proposition 37 (California GMO labeling) did not pass, but with the amount of money and mis-information that was put behind defeating it I should not be too surprised.

---

Janice

my understanding of absentee ballots is that they aren't even counts unless the vote is clearly going to be close. I'd rather early vote than not be counted

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope