• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Presidential election rigged?

Patrickt said:
Many historians argue fraud effected the outcome of the Kennedy-Nixon 1960 election. The two key states were Texas and Illinois and between Lyndon B. Johnon's Texas were in some counties more people voted than lived there and with Mayor Daley's magnificent reputation for fraud in Illinois there is a strong case to be made.

Today we have elections not where there are more votes than people but where there are more votes than there are registered voters. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

My understanding of Kennedy-Nixon is that while a number of Republicans claimed fraud Nixon didn't - and didn't bother to contest any of the voting results. Those results that were contested by the Republican party, apparently without Nixon's blessing, were confirmed in all cases except one that was originally for Nixon but actually went to Kennedy.

Given Nixon's personality it's hard for me to see that he would have walked away from the election unless he personally was absolutely sure that there was no fraud. I'd think Nixon would have been in court instantly if he even suspected the election results were tainted.

As to the other can you provide non-biased sources? I've heard tell of dead registered voters but looking at some of those cases closer it usually turns out that people are complaining of registered voters who recently died and hadn't yet been removed from the election rolls.
 
Smeagol said:
One of the major party candidates for president is suggesting the election in November might be rigged. Do you agree?
Click to expand...

Well, there is a smidgen of Truth to that. Obama had the election rigged in 2008 but the election wound up not being close enough where the rigged part made any difference. Not sure about this election but, again, I doubt the election will be close enough that anyone could say that anything that was rigged makes enough difference to change the outcome. You really have to have a close election in the first place to even try claiming it was rigged. Now, Hillary did have the primaries rigged.
 
To say it's rigged indicates that the ballot is compromised or that political suppression is the law of the land. Both charges are simply fictitious ones that carry some serious implications.

That being said, are the election pristine? certainly not. Deceit and fraud are legitimate concerns regarding the electoral system of the U.S.
 
Moderate Right said:
Well, there is a smidgen of Truth to that. Obama had the election rigged in 2008 but the election wound up not being close enough where the rigged part made any difference. Not sure about this election but, again, I doubt the election will be close enough that anyone could say that anything that was rigged makes enough difference to change the outcome. You really have to have a close election in the first place to even try claiming it was rigged. Now, Hillary did have the primaries rigged.
Click to expand...

I think the recent revelations prove the election has been rigged. But I suppose it depends on how one wants to apply the word.

Trump has said the election is rigged. Given the collusion by the media, the behind the scenes manipulations of candidates, along with all the other corruptible actions by Hillary Clinton and her political machine, it's not possible to suggest it hasn't been rigged.

On that note, Trump is correct to say it has been rigged, since it clearly has been.

Whether the results, and the activity surrounding actual voting and counting results indicate this rigging continued remains to be seen.
 
Of course it isn't rigged. The notion is absurd. The level of conspiracy required to fix a POTUS election would have to be so vast that it couldn't possibly be kept a secret. Tens of thousands of people would have to be in on it from dozens of states. The conspiracy would have to involve people from the private sector and the public sector at local, state, and federal levels. AND they'd have to pull the wool over the eyes of every single person they worked with who wasn't in on the conspiracy.

This is self-destruction on the part of conservatives who are buying into this nonsense. Since the U.S. first came into existence, the loser of the Presidential election accepted that for Whatever reasons, more people liked the other candidate better, and then they moved on. The losing party then reflected inward to evaluate what happened, and what could be done differently next time. That's the proper thing to do: take responsibility for why your candidate didn't get picked, see what worked, see what didn't, and begin planning for the next election. But now we have conservatives who refuse to examine the situation in a mature, analytical fashion, which guarantees their numbers to fall even further in the next election, thereby guaranteeing more losses in the future.

This garbage about it being rigged is just that: garbage.
 
Opopanax said:
Of course it isn't rigged. The notion is absurd. The level of conspiracy required to fix a POTUS election would have to be so vast that it couldn't possibly be kept a secret. Tens of thousands of people would have to be in on it from dozens of states. The conspiracy would have to involve people from the private sector and the public sector at local, state, and federal levels. AND they'd have to pull the wool over the eyes of every single person they worked with who wasn't in on the conspiracy.

This is self-destruction on the part of conservatives who are buying into this nonsense. Since the U.S. first came into existence, the loser of the Presidential election accepted that for Whatever reasons, more people liked the other candidate better, and then they moved on. The losing party then reflected inward to evaluate what happened, and what could be done differently next time. That's the proper thing to do: take responsibility for why your candidate didn't get picked, see what worked, see what didn't, and begin planning for the next election. But now we have conservatives who refuse to examine the situation in a mature, analytical fashion, which guarantees their numbers to fall even further in the next election, thereby guaranteeing more losses in the future.

This garbage about it being rigged is just that: garbage.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Hillary didn't rig the primaries?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom