[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51437018]Considering Wystan essentially said "well yeah I would, but it isn't happening" confirms what they said right there. This is real rich coming from yourself.[/QUOTE]
lmao no I didn't
[QUOTE=Komodoh;51437039]1. Point me in the direction where he said this.
2. Point me in the direction where I have made an assumption about someones political beliefs to push my own opinion.
Go on, I'll wait.[/QUOTE]
1. "but that isn't the reality" implies he'd do so if it happened, so it's not exactly hard to come to a simple conclusion.
2. Really? This coming from the guy who deflects criticism from anyone as just being some upset Hilary voter, like anyone that opposes you or Trump's views supports her? I'm just impressed you're actually trying to converse considering one of your past posts.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1542408&p=51404075&highlight=#post51404075[/url]
"Nobody on this forum actually argues correctly so what difference does it make."
Then again, I shouldn't be too surprised, as this is the guy with this golden quote.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1542120&p=51392783&highlight=#post51392783[/url]
"I care about civil rights, I just don't care about gay marriage. You'll get over it eventually."
Back on topic, I think it's alright for recounts to happen if someone asks for it, provided there's evidence or reason to suspect there were errors. Wouldn't matter if it came from Hilary, Jill, Trump, Obama, etc.
[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51437158]1. "but that isn't the reality" implies he'd do so if it happened, so it's not exactly hard to come to a simple conclusion.
2. Really? This coming from the guy who deflects criticism from anyone as just being some upset Hilary voter, like anyone that opposes you or Trump's views supports her? I'm just impressed you're actually trying to converse considering one of your past posts.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1542408&p=51404075&highlight=#post51404075[/url]
"Nobody on this forum actually argues correctly so what difference does it make."
Then again, I shouldn't be too surprised, as this is the guy with this golden quote.
[url]https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1542120&p=51392783&highlight=#post51392783[/url]
"I care about civil rights, I just don't care about gay marriage. You'll get over it eventually."
Back on topic, I think it's alright for recounts to happen if someone asks for it, provided there's evidence or reason to suspect there were errors. Wouldn't matter if it came from Hilary, Jill, Trump, Obama, etc.[/QUOTE]
1. I don't know what world you live in or where you learned reading comprehension, but "but that isn't the reality" in no way, shape, or form, implies "well yeah I would, but it isn't happening"
2. For one, I'm not making an assumption on someone's political beliefs for saying that, I'm giving an observation on how this site "argues", so nice try. I even later linked a thread that night where it was just as i explained.
But in an astounding bit of irony, you also just proved it yourself. Bringing up a completely unrelated opinion of mine as an attempt to discredit me on something [B]COMPLETELY[/B] different is not disproving my point. I did not make an assumption on someone's political beliefs in that post you linked. I think i did that once in a snarky shitpost (you know, like the entirety of facepunch's user base), but it is not that post you linked.
That's pretty fair. I've been a bit on edge today, so that wasn't right of me. Sorry, my bad!
Perhaps this was mentioned in the thread earlier, but I wonder why it is that this whole movement came from Jill Stein instead of Hillary. You would think the runner-up would have more of an interest in a recount.
[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51437018]Considering Wystan essentially said "well yeah I would, but it isn't happening" confirms what they said right there. This is real rich coming from yourself.[/QUOTE]
Posts like this make me wish this subforum was closed. You aren't contributing anything to the thread, only a toxic atmosphere that impedes the discussion.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51437206]Perhaps this was mentioned in the thread earlier, but I wonder why it is that this whole movement came from Jill Stein instead of Hillary. You would think the runner-up would have more of an interest in a recount.
Posts like this make me wish this subforum was closed. You aren't contributing anything to the thread, only a toxic atmosphere that impedes the discussion.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that wasn't cool of me. I have nothing to hide behind, that was my bad.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51437206]Perhaps this was mentioned in the thread earlier, but I wonder why it is that this whole movement came from Jill Stein instead of Hillary. You would think the runner-up would have more of an interest in a recount.[/QUOTE]
There's no real "lose" situation for Jill in doing so. If it's in Hillary's favor, she gets hailed for calling the recount. If it leans more to Trump, same thing.
That, or she could be calling just to ensure the 5% third-party vote.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51436942]Trump does make a point with the popular vote; it's not democratically efficient when you can just campaign in California, New York etc. and immediately begin to represent an entire country of people who may not have voted for you.[/QUOTE]
Still seems kinda bullshit to me that Trump can win 1/3rd of the vote in California but Clinton gets all 55 electoral votes.
Trump's pets are now making threats against Clinton, demanding that she stop the recount.
It's looking more and more likely that the only actual election rigging done was by the Trump campaign.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51437401]Still seems kinda bullshit to me that Trump can win 1/3rd of the vote in California but Clinton gets all 55 electoral votes.[/QUOTE]
Trump never had a chance in California. The state just has far too much of a left-populist bent to ever go red.
[editline]27th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51436069]What?[/QUOTE]
Popular vote is not representative in a country as large as ours. It would probably be more effective if every state had a population center as massive as Chicago or NYC, but we just have too many people living in distant rural areas who would be literally flown over by campaigns seeking to minimize travel while maximizing the reach of their events. Trump put it well in that one tweet that I'm not going to link to because I can't figure out how to do it on mobile.
[editline]27th November 2016[/editline]
It's sort of like how I skipped over your reply since it has no content.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51437911]
Popular vote is not representative in a country as large as ours. It would probably be more effective if every state had a population center as massive as Chicago or NYC, but we just have too many people living in distant rural areas who would be literally flown over by campaigns seeking to minimize travel while maximizing the reach of their events. Trump put it well in that one tweet that I'm not going to link to because I can't figure out how to do it on mobile.[/QUOTE]
There is a point to be made about campaigning skipping over less populace states but I can't possibly see how a direct, popular vote isn't representative. Barring Republican fuck fuck games, if everyone is allowed to go the polls it's still representative of the peoples will.
If the popular vote is not representative of a country as large as ours then that means that there is a size limit on how effective the popular vote is, and if you are sticking to this position you have to be willing to explain where approximately that limit is.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51437911]
Popular vote is not representative in a country as large as ours. It would probably be more effective if every state had a population center as massive as Chicago or NYC, but we just have too many people living in distant rural areas who would be literally flown over by campaigns seeking to minimize travel while maximizing the reach of their events. Trump put it well in that one tweet that I'm not going to link to because I can't figure out how to do it on mobile. [/quote]
The popular vote is the closest approximation of the will of the people. What I think you are arguing is that the will of the people should not matter as is, but instead weighted based on an attribute. The US already do this, not only through EC but by also disallowing prisoners to vote. Now whether or not this weighting should be done is ultimately a question of values, whether or not a minority deserves a boosted voice or if you should make some votes matter more than others.
What I think that nearly everyone here agrees is that the EC is not a good system because it is very inconsistent when it comes to weighing votes.
Most small states are still ignored even with the electoral college, along with most large states as well. I don't think even with it being a one man one vote system it'll entirely cause small states to be ignored. Instead they'll focus on where they think their message can reach the most people, which has a lot of factors. If you appeal to Louisiana, or South Dakota, what you're doing will be important and relevant to people in many other similar states.
[QUOTE=Komodoh;51436833]Why am I not surprised you are STILL making assumptions to try and push your own invalid points.[/QUOTE]
If Trump said he would refuse to accept the results if he lost I don't think it's a crazy assumption to think Trump supporters would think similarly.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;51430682]Hillary won the popular vote is not a valid argument for her winning this election. Voter turnout is significantly lower in non battleground states. I myself didn't even bother voting because my state has a 100% chance of turning the color I want. Trump and Hillary both campaigned with the electorial college in mind, and Hillary lost.[/QUOTE]
if anything thats a greater argument for why the entire election process is fraudulent in the first place
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51437948]There is a point to be made about campaigning skipping over less populace states but I can't possibly see how a direct, popular vote isn't representative. Barring Republican fuck fuck games, if everyone is allowed to go the polls it's still representative of the peoples will.
If the popular vote is not representative of a country as large as ours then that means that there is a size limit on how effective the popular vote is, and if you are sticking to this position you have to be willing to explain where approximately that limit is.[/QUOTE]
It's not an issue of size per se, but the concentration of large portions of the population in urban regions. I believe allowing convicts to vote would be a great step forward, but I think it would exacerbate the issue since places like LA and NYC have massive prison populations.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51438399]It's not an issue of size per se, but the concentration of large portions of the population in urban regions. I believe allowing convicts to vote would be a great step forward, but I think it would exacerbate the issue since places like LA and NYC have massive prison populations.[/QUOTE]
It's felons that are barred from voting, I don't think people currently in prison should be able to vote, but felons who already served their time should be able to.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;51438481]It's felons that are barred from voting, I don't think people currently in prison should be able to vote, but felons who already served their time should be able to.[/QUOTE]
I view them as one and the same, and think both should be re-enfranchised. On the whole, we should treat our prison populations a lot better civically.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51438566]I view them as one and the same, and think both should be re-enfranchised. On the whole, we should treat our prison populations a lot better civically.[/QUOTE]
The prison system is one of the few things that actively makes me go "holy fuck, I really need to actually become politically active."
[quote]Popular vote is not representative in a country as large as ours.[/quote]
Okay, three question to this:
Why?
Is the electoral college skew ideal in making it representative and why?
Is it worth the downsides of the electoral college?
[quote]It would probably be more effective if every state had a population center as massive as Chicago or NYC, but we just have too many people living in distant rural areas who would be literally flown over by campaigns seeking to minimize travel while maximizing the reach of their events.[/quote]
Rural areas don't simply exist in small states, though. California has large swathes of land where basically no one live, but they "suffer" because they're within the same state as a large population centers.
Why are those people less worth representing than those in smaller states?
And
Why are rural areas inherently more in need of representation?
[quote]Trump put it well in that one tweet that I'm not going to link to because I can't figure out how to do it on mobile.[/quote]
And this is where it breaks down. Maybe Trump could've campaigned in four states only, and while 15 is an improvement, you still have the majority of states not being visited. Now you have to look at [I]which[/I] states are being visited - and this is the same old, tired (but still incredibly relevant) point: the electoral college (in combination with FPTP) doesn't make small states important, it makes [I]swing states[/I] important. If you're not in play, you're not important at all - that goes whether you're Texas or Wyoming. So here are my questions:
Why should Florida (and Pennsylvania) have so much sway in the election to the point where a couple hundred thousand voters decides who wins?
Why should [I]those[/I] large states important when their only merit (compared to California or Texas) is that:
[QUOTE=Chonch;51437911]Trump never had a chance in California. The state just has far too much of a left-populist bent to ever go red.[/quote]
?
[quote]It's sort of like how I skipped over your reply since it has no content.[/QUOTE]
Nice (unwarranted, in my opinion) quip, but I was legitimately confused about what you meant with "the inefficiency of the popular vote". Apparently you were, too, because you didn't answer. Now we're discussing something else, which is fair I suppose.
I apologize to anyone who tries to read this.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51439130]Okay, three question to this:
Why?
Is the electoral college skew ideal in making it representative and why?
Is it worth the downsides of the electoral college?[/quote]
[QUOTE]we just have too many people living in distant rural areas who would be literally flown over by campaigns seeking to minimize travel while maximizing the reach of their events.[/QUOTE]
It's far from ideal, but I'd argue the electoral college is a little bit better than a straight popular vote because it forces candidates to travel to a wide variety of states rather than just riding the coasts. Look at all the unexpected swing states this year; that different states are in play every cycle illustrates the worth of the system. You'll have to define the downsides you're talking about or else I'm going to risk looking like an ass talking about nothing.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51439130]Rural areas don't simply exist in small states, though. California has large swathes of land where basically no one live, but they "suffer" because they're within the same state as a large population centers.[/quote]
I'm not talking specifically about small states, I'm talking about medium-ish rural states with a variety of political opinions spread out thinly across the state, e.g. Iowa and most of the West. A straight popular vote could leave these kinds of states in the dust, and that's a big deal because every state is entitled to representation.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51439130]Why are those people less worth representing than those in smaller states?[/quote]
They aren't. In fact, the electoral college gives more power to these folks by allowing a large group of rural voters to match or override the votes of their urban colleagues.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51439130]Why are rural areas inherently more in need of representation?[/quote]
Urban environments are more attractive to campaign in and is thus worth more to an aspiring President. The problem is that some twenty percent of the population lives in rural areas, and so they need a boost to ensure their views are taken into account. "Tyranny by majority" would be one way to put it.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51439130]And this is where it breaks down. Maybe Trump could've campaigned in four states only, and while 15 is an improvement, you still have the majority of states not being visited. Now you have to look at [I]which[/I] states are being visited - and this is the same old, tired (but still incredibly relevant) point: the electoral college (in combination with FPTP) doesn't make small states important, it makes [I]swing states[/I] important. If you're not in play, you're not important at all - that goes whether you're Texas or Wyoming. So here are my questions:
Why should Florida (and Pennsylvania) have so much sway in the election to the point where a couple hundred thousand voters decides who wins?
Why should [I]those[/I] large states important when their only merit (compared to California or Texas) is that:
?[/quote]
Man, that's eleven states which otherwise would have seen zero campaigning under a popular vote. The argument writes itself; we need to be building on the electoral college every cycle to make it more representative rather than just dismantling it over a single election.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51439130]Nice (unwarranted, in my opinion) quip, but I was legitimately confused about what you meant with "the inefficiency of the popular vote". Apparently you were, too, because you didn't answer. Now we're discussing something else, which is fair I suppose.[/QUOTE]
There's very little to address in a one-word post, so I don't need to pay any attention to it. Likewise in a first-past-the-post popular vote, there's very little votes to snatch up in an area with little population, so a candidate doesn't need to pay any attention to it. You need to read the posts again.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51442186]The problem is that some twenty percent of the population lives in rural areas, and so they need a boost to ensure their views are taken into account. "Tyranny by majority" would be one way to put it.[/QUOTE]
I'll only tackle this part since it's what the bulk of your argument is based on, and it's the main argument of people who defend the electoral college in general.
What you're saying in essence is that since the rural population is a minority, they need their voting power to be inflated to compensate for that fact and avoid a 'tyranny of the majority'.
Alright, fair enough. At first glance this seems like a good way to ensure nobody gets their rights trampled on because they're a minority.
But for that point to be valid [I]you need to apply the same logic to all other minorities.[/I] And that's not what the electoral college does. At all.
Do racial minorities get inflated votes? Does the unemployed? Does the handicapped? Do LGTB people get those? All of those are minorities with specific interests that are just as deserving of having their views taken into account as people from the countryside. But that's not what happens at all. In fact, some of those minorities are mainly located within cities, so the electoral college actually does the [I]opposite[/I] of what you think it does well by squashing those minorities' views to make way for the rural population's.
So basically, it grants a privilege to country people that devalues the voice of every other minorities for no valid reason. If what you want is to give a voice to the small people and avoid a 'tyranny of the majority', then the electoral college is even worse than the popular vote since it enables a tyranny of a specific minority over all the others...
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51437401]Still seems kinda bullshit to me that Trump can win 1/3rd of the vote in California but Clinton gets all 55 electoral votes.[/QUOTE]
Thats the non-proportional system for you.
If we had proportional Clinton probably would've won since a lot of key states like the dem rust belt strongholds Trump had a very small lead, and in right leaning swing states like Florida she came very close.
Direct democracy works best in a small nation like say switzerland, but they also have a universal education and we don't. So they have the small size and a educated populace.
For a nation as big as us cities really will dominate the votes regardless if its EC or not, but a proportional EC system would be the fairest we could get to.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51442510]I'll only tackle this part since it's what the bulk of your argument is based on, and it's the main argument of people who defend the electoral college in general.
What you're saying in essence is that since the rural population is a minority, they need their voting power to be inflated to compensate for that fact and avoid a 'tyranny of the majority'.
Alright, fair enough. At first glance this seems like a good way to ensure nobody gets their rights trampled on because they're a minority.
But for that point to be valid [I]you need to apply the same logic to all other minorities.[/I] And that's not what the electoral college does. At all.
Do racial minorities get inflated votes? Does the unemployed? Does the handicapped? Do LGTB people get those? All of those are minorities with specific interests that are just as deserving of having their views taken into account as people from the countryside. But that's not what happens at all. In fact, some of those minorities are mainly located within cities, so the electoral college actually does the [I]opposite[/I] of what you think it does well by squashing those minorities' views to make way for the rural population's.
So basically, it grants a privilege to country people that devalues the voice of every other minorities for no valid reason. If what you want is to give a voice to the small people and avoid a 'tyranny of the majority', then the electoral college is even worse than the popular vote since it enables a tyranny of a specific minority over all the others...[/QUOTE]
The weakest point of the post and you picked it anyway. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but that's really not type of minority that is pertinent to the discussion. The electoral process is more or less blind to social minorities, which is great since they don't generally vote on clear ideological lines.
The rural/urban problem needs to be addressed because no matter what their political views or social status, the votes of a rural sector will always be trumped by those of an urban sector purely due to a smaller concentration of people. This distinction wouldn't matter in any other situation except for in an election.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51442897]That's a pretty weak point for you to cherrypick out of the post. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but that's really not type of minority that is pertinent to the discussion. The electoral process is more or less blind to social minorities, which is great since they don't generally vote on clear ideological lines.
The rural/urban problem needs to be addressed because no matter what their political views or social status, the votes of a rural sector will always be trumped by those of an urban sector purely due to a smaller concentration of people. This distinction wouldn't matter in any other situation except for in an election.[/QUOTE]
but we're specifically talking about tyranny of the majority, ie a scenario in which the majority places it's interests not only above, but also at the expense of or to the detriment of those in the minority. We're not simply talking about a situation where blue disagrees with red, we're talking about a situation where blue oppresses red. We already have multiple checks against this kind of situation built into the structure of our government, including the bill of rights (9th and tenth amendment) and separation of powers. If urban cities are capable of straight up [I]oppressing[/I] rural towns simply through presidential election (aka the furthest out, most abstracted office in our government), the entire system has failed.
[editline]p[/editline]
like, a president can't run on the platform that he'll literally take the right to vote away from rural areas. Even if urbanites wanted that, everything about the way our government is setup makes that impossible to do. It's the same for any other issue which would actually constitute tyranny in this context.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51442897]The weakest point of the post and you picked it anyway.[/QUOTE]
You're right, that's your weakest point. It's also the point you base all the others on:
[QUOTE]1 - It's far from ideal, but I'd argue the electoral college is a little bit better than a straight popular vote because it forces candidates to travel to a wide variety of states rather than just riding the coasts.[/QUOTE]
Here you're making a point about candidates not having to travel to certain states under a popular vote, making location a key factor in your argument, which is justified by your rhetoric about not leaving rural minorities behind.
Except I could make the exact same point about candidates not having to appeal to other minorities thanks to the electoral college reducing their relative voting power. But you ignore that fact because your weakest point values rural minorities over every other one.
[QUOTE]2 - I'm not talking specifically about small states, I'm talking about medium-ish rural states with a variety of political opinions spread out thinly across the state, e.g. Iowa and most of the West. A straight popular vote could leave these kinds of states in the dust, and that's a big deal because every state is entitled to representation.[/QUOTE]
This one doesn't even make sense in the context of your own logic. Medium states don't really get much in terms of voter inflation, and states with a wide variety of opinions are [I]not[/I] best represented by the winner takes all system in place under the electoral college. When a state leans 49% to one side and 51% to the other, the most accurate way for it to represent its population is by having its electoral votes match those proportions, not by giving all the political power to the slim majority. The latter is what you yourself define as "tyranny of the majority".
[QUOTE]3 - They aren't. In fact, the electoral college gives more power to these folks by allowing a large group of rural voters to match or override the votes of their urban colleagues.[/QUOTE]
Literally a rewording of your "weakest point".
[QUOTE]4 - Man, that's eleven states which otherwise would have seen zero campaigning under a popular vote. The argument writes itself; we need to be building on the electoral college every cycle to make it more representative rather than just dismantling it over a single election.[/QUOTE]
Same as point 1.
[QUOTE]5 - Likewise in a first-past-the-post popular vote, there's very little votes to snatch up in an area with little population, so a candidate doesn't need to pay any attention to it.[/QUOTE]
Idem.
This is why you don't want the keystone of your argument to be the weakest: It all falls apart if you remove it.
Now for your weakest point itself:
[QUOTE]I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but that's really not type of minority that is pertinent to the discussion. The electoral process is more or less blind to social minorities, which is great since they don't generally vote on clear ideological lines.[/QUOTE]
That doesn't make any kind of sense. Why are those minorities not pertinent to the discussion aside from you saying so? What is the rural population if not a social minority? And the biggest bullshit of this part: How the hell can you claim people from the countryside vote on clear ideological lines and not other social minorities? Don't black people, who are on average poorer than other races, overwhelmingly vote for the party which claims to support greater social mobility?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/S7DpHtM.jpg[/t]
Oh. They do.
Don't LGBT people mainly support the party which claims to push for more progressive social policies?
[t]http://i.imgur.com/2PfZ9AU.png[/t]
They do. How surprising.
You'd have to be a complete moron to claim that rural communities are the only minority who vote on clear ideological lines, which is why I hope (for your sake) that you only claimed this to support your point hoping that nobody would see through the bullshit.
[QUOTE]The rural/urban problem needs to be addressed because no matter what their political views or social status, the votes of a rural sector will always be trumped by those of an urban sector purely due to a smaller concentration of people. This distinction wouldn't matter in any other situation except for in an election.[/QUOTE]
Smaller concentration? You do realize that concentration is irrelevant in popular voting, right? What matters is the total amount of people within the country, whether they're all in one spot or spread all over.
In fact, the electoral college [I]is the one that discriminates based on concentration.[/I] Because of the winner takes all system, local minorities' views are voided for the benefit of the local majority's, effectively punishing voting blocks which are too spread out to secure a majority anywhere.
I'll assume what you meant was:
[QUOTE]The rural/urban problem needs to be addressed because no matter what their political views or social status, the votes of a rural sector will always be trumped by those of an urban sector purely due to a smaller amount of people. This distinction wouldn't matter in any other situation except for in an election.[/QUOTE]
To which I say:
The minority/majority problem needs to be addressed because no matter what their political views or social status, the votes of a social minority will always be trumped by those of the social majority purely due to a smaller amount of people. This distinction wouldn't matter in any other situation except for in an election.
Which is basically a generalization of your point. Unless you want to admit to being a hypocrite, you have to denounce the electoral college which goes against the reasoning you champion by lessening the vote of social minorities that aren't the rural population.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51442897]The weakest point of the post and you picked it anyway. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this, but that's really not type of minority that is pertinent to the discussion. The electoral process is more or less blind to social minorities, which is great since they don't generally vote on clear ideological lines.
The rural/urban problem needs to be addressed because no matter what their political views or social status, the votes of a rural sector will always be trumped by those of an urban sector purely due to a smaller concentration of people. This distinction wouldn't matter in any other situation except for in an election.[/QUOTE]
You dont fix a tyranny of the majority by instituting tyranny by a minority.
You know, all this talk about how the electoral college gives a greater voice to the minority voters in this country simply for the sake of them being fewer in number. That sure sounds like another program we have in this country -- Affirmative Action lol
[QUOTE=Chonch;51437206]Perhaps this was mentioned in the thread earlier, but I wonder why it is that this whole movement came from Jill Stein instead of Hillary. You would think the runner-up would have more of an interest in a recount.
Posts like this make me wish this subforum was closed. You aren't contributing anything to the thread, only a toxic atmosphere that impedes the discussion.[/QUOTE]
Hillary's campaign said they simply didn't see sufficient evidence of large scale voting anomalies to consider it worth pursuing. They're backing Stein simply because it's already funded. They night as well make sure everything is on the up and up (it almost certainly is).
[URL="http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/news/recount_order_president_pdf_13503.pdf"]GAB got payment and the recount has been ordered.[/URL]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
