Posted on 03/24/2014 5:38:37 AM PDT by SJackson
Ohio Democrats honored a disgraced Hamilton County poll worker, convicted of voting multiple times, at a Voter Bill of Rights rally Thursday.
Al Sharpton was the keynote speaker at an event to spearhead a campaign to get an amendment to the Ohio Constitution that would, among other things, allow for online voter registration. But the real guest of honor turned out to be Melowese Richardson, according to the Cincinnati Inquirer.
Inquirer reporter Sharon Coolidge tweeted:
In the 2012 presidential election, Richardson voted as many a six times in her fight “for Mr. Obama’s right to sit as president of the United States,” according to Cincinnati’s Channel 9.
Richardson acknowledged in November that she voted by absentee ballot and then again at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted, according to Cincinnati’s Channel 9.
She also said she sent in an absentee ballot for her granddaughter, who voted at the precinct. And three other registered voters at Richardson’s address sent in absentee ballots at the same time, all with similar handwriting.
She was brought up on the stage during the rally and hugged by Sharpton, apparently for her efforts to keep Obama in the White House.
The proposed Voter Rights amendment would provide, according to the Cincinnati Inquirer:
The amendment would allow online registration; maintain current identification options and expands them to include student identification; maintain the 35-day early voting period and forbid a ballot from being rejected due to poll worker error.
If the amendment passes, Ohio would no longer be a battleground state. It would be safely in the hands of the Democratic Party — especially if Richardson gets her old job back at the Hamilton County Board of Elections.
RAT city/state ping.
so Melowese.....is down with..”The Climate Reality Project”....
Might Melowese actually be the nations first known Fraudulent Voter Transexual? by the looks of her Id say “ she” might well be
Since blacks were denied the right to vote for so many years, they are allowed to vote as many times as they like to make up for it. /s
LOL - you’re right. Funny stuff. Bunch of liberals clapping for a black criminal... These folks have no idea how tacky they appear to the rest of us...
MSNBC has been pushing the theme that all blacks arrested or convicted of any crimes are victims of a racist system.
Either they were persecuted under laws that are not enforced when whites break them (white privileged), or they were forced into crime by a system that first marked them with a police record in pre-school.
What they don't do is discuss how hate crimes are only enforced if the perp is white, like with all these knockout crimes.
About as "tacky" as the Mafia.
Sadly, a bunch of conservatives seem to totally deny the effect of vote fraud in the big cities. You see that mentality with the "Bill Brady just didn't work hard enough for Governor" people in Illinois. Yes, there are tons of examples where a Republican screwed up and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory (Todd Akins, Richard Mourdock, etc.) But there are also numerous examples where the Republican was ahead in the polls throughout the campaign and stayed focus and continued to campaign hard, only to "lose" on election day because of 120% turnout in a big city. Unfortunately some fools on our side would have you believe that Pat Quinn "won" areas of Cook County where Brady lawn signs outnumbered Quinn 3 to 1 because Brady "didn't work hard enough".
One very simple reform that could combat massive urban voter fraud has to do with presidential elections. You asked if I support the electoral college. I do. However, I do NOT support the current method most states used to allocate votes in the electoral college. Most states use "winner take all", so the Dems can "win" every single electoral vote of a state simply by getting massive votes in the big cities. An example is Al Gore winning all of Wisconsin's electoral votes in 2000 thanks to huge support in Milwaukee and Madison, despite losing the rest of the counties in the state. The Constitution is silent on how electoral votes are distributed, so its up to the states to decide how to allocate their electoral votes. If conservatives made an effort, we could easily change the method to electoral votes won on a district-by-district basis by majority votes in various states. Then it wouldn't matter how many fraudulent votes the Dems produced in big cities. If they carried Detroit's two congressional districts by 51% of the vote, they'd win 2 electoral votes. If they had massive dead votes and people voting five times and won 120% of the "voters" in Detroit, they'd still win 2 electoral votes under this proposal. Under the current system, they can use their 120% voter "turnout" in Detroit to get a "majority" statewide and win ALL of Michigan's electoral votes, regardless of how the rest of the state votes.
It would be an excellent reform to combat vote fraud in the big cities. Unfortunately most conservatives slow little motivation to make this change, and would rather fantasize about repealing the 17th amendment -- something that will obviously never happen, and if it did happen, it would only STRENGTHEN the clout of corrupt Democrat officials at the state and local level, by giving them direct power to install other corrupt politicians at the federal level.
” If conservatives made an effort, we could easily change the method to electoral votes won on a district-by-district basis by majority votes in various states.”
That’s democracy, the worst possible form of government ever devised!
Take your plan and shove it.
If every state had that there would never be a chance of a Republican President again.
Yada yada yada...It’s the same thing.
The cities choose the electors, the cities choose the Senators....through fraud.
However, regarding A17, the cityRATs cannot steal the elections of reps from a state’s rural districts....who (if in a majority) would then choose the Senators.
Nope. You repeating it constantly doesn't make it the same thing. Electoral votes allocated by district and electoral votes allocated by the statewide results make a huge difference. We would have gotten around 20 electoral votes out of California if electoral-vote-by-district was in place. Right now the GOP writes off the state and we get 0 every Presidential election.
>> The cities choose the electors <<
In the 48 states that don't allocate electoral votes by congressional district.
>> the cities choose the Senators....through fraud. <<
They occasionally do, when the 17th amendment is in effective (good example being Al Franken "winning" in Minnesota) Other times, they GOTV in the cities and push as hard as they can to overcome the rest of the state, but fail (good example being Ron Johnson winning in Wisconsin)
But they ALWAYS did succeed, when the pre-17th amendment system was in use (there were massive scandals every day about Senators buying their Senate seats by bribing a handful of state legislators with clout). Go back and read about what the Senate looked like in 1912 if you don't believe me. Ironically all your state legislature appointed Senators that supposedly represent "state interests" were the ones that gave us the federal income tax in the first place. It wasn't the elected Senators.
>> However, regarding A17, the cityRATs cannot steal the elections of reps from a state’s rural districts....who (if in a majority) would then choose the Senators. <<
Irrelevant, since 75% of the state's population is metropolitan areas, thus THEY have the majority of state legislative seats in virtually every state in America (there might be a few exceptions in extremely rural states like Montana). It's even more lopsided if they gerrymander like it my state to guaranteed they control all the suburban seats(an issue you continue to ignore because it doesn't gel with your fantasy that state legislatures are like they were in 1789)
Now, speaking of the "intent of the founders", on the federal level, the most important factor was the lower house represented population interests, and the upper house represented GEOGRAPHIC interests. Unfortunately that is NOT TRUE on the state level (where state senators now represent population rather than geographic areas). If we DID go back to the old system, then your point about Dems not being able to gerrymander rural areas would be valid. As it stands now, urban areas control BOTH HOUSES of state legislators. Unfortunately you anti-17thers want to repeal the 17th BEFORE you fix state legislatures, which is like the leftists who claim "life in prison" is harsher than the death penalty, but they want to repeal the death penalty BEFORE the reform lax sentencing where dangerous murderers get paroled. Both perfect examples of putting the cart before the horse and expecting progress.
Why I don't believe I ever said that more than once, but: It's the same, it's the same, it's the same.
Electoral votes allocated by district and electoral votes allocated by the statewide results make a huge difference.
Big whoop, we already have that here in Maine, which makes it suspect.
Actually, I agree with you on that. The actual political divide in the US is; normal country folks vs whacked-out city freaks.
Why, Chairman Jiang Zemin, I didn't know you had an account on FR! Yes, we must crush all efforts to have democracy in this country. It is the most evil thing ever created by mankind! Democracy is FAR worse than dictatorships where the people have no voting rights. Those young people will need to read their little red books and learn to obey the state without question! Send in the tanks! It will be glorious!
>> If every state had that there would never be a chance of a Republican President again. <<
Actually, Bush would have won by a GREATER margin in 2000, since Bush won more Democrat congressional districts than Gore won Republican congressional districts. The only difference is Gore wouldn't have been able to hold the whole state of Florida hostage for months. Bush would have won in 2004 as well. The electoral vote totals in 2008 and 2012 would have been far closer too, since McCain and Romney would have picked numerous electoral votes in swing states. It's also not pure democracy, since the voters would still elect the president indirectly via the electoral college, and NOT by popular vote (a presidential candidate could STILL win the nationwide popular vote and lose the presidency under my proposed reform, just like under the current electoral system). The founders were perfectly okay with with letting the state allocate electoral votes however they wished, and two states use the system now -- Nebraska and Maine.
But I'm sure you don't want pesky facts like that getting in the way of your glorious vision of a democracy free "People's Republic", comrade. Mao would be proud of "conservatives" like you.
Really, your fellow anti-17ther just told me that allocating electoral votes by congressional district would be the "worst form of government ever devised".
Yep. Which is why I'm adamantly against these whacked-out city freaks choosing my Senator for me:
Illinois House Speaker
Mike Madigan (D-Chicago) 
Illinois House Majority Leader
Barbara Flynn Currie (D-Chicago) 
Illinois Senate President
John Cullteron (D-Chicago) 
But thanks to the 17th amendment, us normal folks living ELSEWHERE in Illinois were able to elect these NON city freaks as our Senator:
U.S. Senator
Everett Dirksen (R-IL) of Pekin, Illinois 
U.S. Senator
Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL) of Inverness, Illinois 
Oh well you’re screwed anyway. You should just move to Michigan.
This is a Constitutional Republic not a damn democracy.
You must have gone to grammer school in the last 40 years to not know that, I was taught in school that there is no worse form of government than a democracy.
Converting to a democracy is what destroyed Rome.
Your math is faulty.
Luckily I graduated from American schools and not communist indoctrination schools in the "People's Republic" of China. Otherwise I might agree with you that democracy is pure evil and the protesters in Tiananmen Square wanted mob role.
You'd have a rough time in American schools, you would have certainly failed my H.S. constitution test when you claim a "Republic" means the "rule of law" and "rights for individuals". Australia's never been a Republic and they have both. North Korea is a Republic and they have neither.
Yep. The three standard anti-17ther talking points:
1) If we can't have politicians appoint other politicians to the U.S. Senate, why even HAVE a Senate? (we'll just ignore the obviously fact that the Senate represents geographic interests instead of population interests)
2) If most state legislatures suck, then people need to pay attention more to their candidates, and will if we repeal the 17th (somehow "paying attention" to candidates more will magically stop politicians from gerrymandering themselves into safe seats, of course)
3) If you don't like your state government, MOVE!!
The third point is always the final rebuttal when they've lost the argument that repealing the 17th amendment will improve government (like how liberals end a gay marriage debate with "homophobe!" when they can't refute facts). Since the anti-17thers will never get your way, and since you think "our Republic is destroyed" due to people being allowed to elect our own Senators, my advice is to follow your own advice.
Consider moving to Canada, Germany, or Russia. You will find their method of choosing Senators is much more to your liking. The people in those countries hate it, by the way. That's even more reason to go. You'll be able to fight to preserve it and show them how wrong they are -- and how their system of corrupt politicians appointed Senator for life by sucking up to local party bosses is FAR superior to our system. Putin could use the morale boost from the anti-17thers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.