The Federal government is supposed to represent all kinds of people across the country, not just those in high population density areas. Everyone does get one vote (when done legally).

I just think that somehow, internet voting could be as safe as the countless interbank transactions that are made every day. Cc transactions are not safe I agree, for some reason

Isn't the idea of a popular election that each person gets one vote? What difference should it make where they live- city or country?

Security problems on the internet are not minimal. Identity theft stealing credit card numbers is rampant, and reports revealing massive break-ins stealing records, including passwords, from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of people at a time are routine. Security expert Bruce Schneier discusses the insecurity of the internet for voting and provides dozens of links to references at https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/...

The electoral college isn't an anachronism. It prevents concentrations of populations in small areas from dominating the election. It's bad enough now with NYC and urban CA concentrating power in every national election. Eliminate the electoral college system and people in most areas of the country might as well not vote at all. It's not about third parties.

People will vote for a better kind of candidate and change the direction of the country from the current straight down when the dominant ideas support it. The increasing acceptance of collectivism, altruism and statism breeds financial and political corruption along with the philosophic corruption. Rational individuals with the acknowledged moral right to their own lives and the requirement to think rationally and independently in order to live don't behave like this.

I voted today, so I did my part.

That's for damn sure.

Exactly! I never accepted the WH
vacationer as my president,not
for a second. Counting the days,
term2, counting the days...

Interesting that you would be so afraid of the concept of voting on the internet. We do all of our banking and credit card transactions on the internet with minimal problems. But those are run by private systems, not by inefficient government

In addition if we remove the cronyism where the president can take from one and give to another, the job reverts to chief administrator who runs things according to the constitution. How far we have come from that- when Hillary gets 500 million to help her get elected to a 400k job !!

The electoral college seems to me an anachronism designed to limit competition and make it impossible for third parties to win

A lot of people do need to read them.

Any election can depend on a small difference in numbers of votes if it's a close election. It came down to FLA because of the electoral system providing electoral votes by state in order to represent different regions of the country rather than a mass of concentrated population. Each state runs its own election.

Anyone who wants to run can already do it if he goes through the work of qualifying on the state ballots by showing he has enough support to be considered in the election. The system already allows for fringe candidates.

Web page voting, let alone call in voting by telephone, is frighteningly insecure. The internet in general is notoriously insecure. The government is more active in breaking security and exploiting it than protecting citizens' privacy and property. Add to that the deliberate blocking of all attempts to prevent vote fraud even under the current system because a certain dominant party and its ideology counts on ignorance and corruption to win elections. You don't want the integrity of your vote to rely on the Obamacare website and NSA.

While I agree with your post, it doesn't change the veracity of my post. I don't need to re-read the articles mentioned as I have read them many times.

"The smear doesn't say what they accuse him of plotting."
Yes. There's no way to refute it. There's no specific claim.

"where did you get the rest of his alleged statements?"
The thing about not making any commitments b/c the future is unknowable was from the OP linked article, not from Trump.

"What I saw was that after that implied that we would have to see."
Right. He even says he'll follow the laws and customs of presidential elections. The article title implies something completely different. Here is the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/...

The whole fiasco showed that elections should not be decided on a small number of vote differential. There is no way that a vote count can be THAT accurate. as we saw. Its just not that practical. We need to have more than two parties, and should allow as many candidates as are willing to pay a filing fee to place their name on a secure web page. Voting is then done on the phones or web pages. We do banking on phones and web pages- no reason voting cant be done that way. To make it even safer, voting could be done in each state on separate web pages and the totals added up.

The moderator, who isn't too bright, apparently intended to refer to Trump's charges that the election is "rigged", but he followed the rest of the media and set it up to attack Trump, and all of us, in a much more fundamental way.

In the narrower sense, how is anyone supposed to say in advance whether he will legally challenge vote fraud or miscounts until he sees what happens? And what else could Trump do about it?

But they have deliberately misrepresented his answer, insinuating that Trump opposes peaceful transition, as if he threatens to stage a coup -- or refuse to leave the White House? What exactly are we supposed to think he will do? The smear doesn't say what they accuse him of plotting.

It has an ideologically manipulative purpose directed at all of us. They are demanding a moral acceptance and sanction of a process filled, not just with vote fraud, but filled with financial, political and intellectual corruption, including by the media itself. Most of all they are demanding acceptance of the notion that our system of limited government and protection of the sanctity of the rights of the individual is up for grabs by collectivism-statism in the name of 'voting'. Elections are not supposed to be referendums on the Constitution, manipulated by the intellectuals and politicians to impose statism. Of course we don't "accept" it. It is imposed on us and we can't do anything about it, but we do not respect or sanction what they are doing in any way. That is what they are so frantic to suppress.

Trump seems to sense this, though he doesn't know enough to articulate it, mixing a narrow idea of vote fraud and corruption with the more general principles that all of it is about. He never threatened a coup. He knows that he can't prevent the unsavory politics (unless there is proven vote fraud in a close election), but he isn't about to jump on their bandwagon announcing in advance a call for "unity" and for everyone to gather around to help Hillary "succeed", sanctioning the whole corrupt process and the results. (Whether he caves later is another matter.)

This is exactly what the intellectuals oppressively demanded from us on behalf of Obama (remember Rush Limbaugh as a lone public voice insisting that he hoped Obama did not succeed and the way he was attacked for it?). The trend isn't new. Reread Ayn Rand's "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus" and "The Wreckage of the Consensus" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. The principles explained there are just as important today.

The Florida electoral votes did count. Gore lost. He tried to circumvent the legal process of certifying votes so could get a 'recount' in only areas favorable to him. Subsequent investigations confirmed that he could not have won in Florida.

I saw Trump say the 'if I win' statement but where did you get the rest of his alleged statements? What I saw was that after that implied that we would have to see.

The Supreme Court got into it only because the Florida court already had, with no authority to do so. That is what the Supreme Court shut down.

The idea that our electoral process has always been pure and righteous is laughable. Beginning with the very first elections there have been challenges and claim of fraud, and in not just a few, those claims have been right.

The difference has been that we have yet to have disagreements about the peaceful transfer of power result in violence. Our record has a good history of non-violent political change (except for that messy Civil war thing). Questionable deals have resulted in some downright unworthy Presidents holding office, and there's a possibility that one President may have actually been Canadian (President Ambrose Bierce).

Trump's statement should be viewed as logical, given some recent outcomes (2000 and 2004, as well as some statistically impossible results in 2012).

the supreme court somehow got into it, but shouldnt have in my opinion

And, after they pressured him to actually sign a pledge to support the Republican nominee and all the other candidates made the same pledge, several of them have not. Oath breakers.

Gore exhausted all legal avenues to prevent the Florida vote from counting. Short of calling for rebellion there wasn't anything else he could do.

Gore gave up because it was getting more and more difficult for him to win, and even if he did, the people wouldnt accept him as president.

I wont accept Hillary as MY president, and would fight against anything she wanted. Even though she may be rammed down my throat.

That was the moderator's biggest mistake. It was an unfair question and Trump answered it clumsily but honestly. No one can tell what will happen in the future, even the near future, which means that at present one cannot predict how they'll handle a specific occurrence.

I have NO respect for the New York Times.

Asked that question, candidate me dino woulda said, "You think I'm stupid? Lookit what I'm dealing with--the pinnacle of corruption--sitting there hiding behind her phony smile. There sits the possible--most unfortunately possible--the best president money can bribe. Should I lose? I'll be lucky if I'm not found and pronounced accidentally dead someplace like so many others who have crossed the Clintons."