Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Adolpho > My Blog |
|
Trump Campaign Admits to Republican Election Shenanigans Today has been the day that republicans swore would never come. The day when their presidential candidate admitted to the voter suppression that they have engaged in and that they plan on engaging in going forward. Bloomberg Politics reported a Trump senior official, under cloak of anonymity, stated the Trump campaign plans on voter suppression targeting three specific groups. Those groups are idealistic white voters, women and African Americans. This is really ironic since republicans have been accused of voter suppression for decades only to have those accusations be met with their denial. Now the truth becomes apparent. Republicans do engage in voter suppression. In addition Kellyann Conway admitted today that the Trump campaign was working closely with the RNC to engage poll watchers. Not only did Ms. Conway admit to this alliance but also other members of the Trump Campaign as well as Reince Priebus who is the head of the RNC. The problem this presents to republicans is that the RNC is under a "consent decree" dating to 1982 to prevent them from engaging directly in poll watching. This consent decree was a result of republican voter intimidation in the early 1980s. The consent decree is still in effect. Considering the potential for illegal activity by the RNC, it is highly likely the consent decree will be extended past its termination date. The DNC today filed a "show cause" petition addressing the cozy relationship between the RNC and the Trump campaign regarding the use of "poll watchers" and the likelihood that this will morph into voter intimidation. Couple the issue of the potential violation of the terms of the consent decree with clear admission by a Trump senior official of voter suppression we can see the dirty politics republicans engage in. There should be no confusion that this is something that Trump alone (as an outlier) has engaged in. This involves the very top of the republican party's Reince Priebus. It appears that all of the republican denials of voter suppression were simply lies and that furthermore the claims of rigged elections is a projection of their own behavior. |
|||
10/28/2016 3:19 am |
Hi Don: I don't understand why the number of votes each candidate gets matters. Isn't the winner declared by whoever gets 270 electoral votes? Here in Canada I think they just total up all the votes and whoever gets the most votes is declared the winner.
| ||
10/28/2016 7:40 am |
Hi Don: I don't understand why the number of votes each candidate gets matters. Isn't the winner declared by whoever gets 270 electoral votes? Here in Canada I think they just total up all the votes and whoever gets the most votes is declared the winner. The party that wins the most seats wins the election, and the head of the party becomes the PM. It is certainly mathematically possible that the party getting the most votes wins fewer seats than the winner, although that generally does not occur. This flaw is one reason why I favour a change to a runoff system, or some sort of simple proportional representation. The flaw in first-past-the-post has been demonstrated several times in my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona. Conservative Rahim Jaffer, since disgraced on a number of factors, won a couple of federal elections because of the vote split between Liberals and NDP.
| ||
|
Very true Rentier.
| ||
10/29/2016 3:09 am |
Don I do know how Canada's election works but my point was that our leader is elected by popular vote even though that person's name was not on our voting ballot. In the U.S. you vote directly for who you want to be president, but what I'm not clear about is why the electoral votes seem to determine the winner and not all the voters? And if the leader is selected by getting 270 electoral votes, why did they have a recount of the Florida popular votes when Bush and Gore were running for president?
|
×
×