i was just saying that to keep this thread from getting turned into the same downward spiral as most threads when you bring up compassion.
I know its such a dirty word ...
heaven forbid people be more compassionate to each other. I think I heard your compassion
in another thread... moment of weakness?
No not at all it's all in the heart and brings understanding.
All the states that have adopted it are blue states, and now the red staters are bitching about the electoral college. :roll:
By the way, this is a lot of sour grapes. Go to West Philly or North Philly and find me half a dozen Romney voters and I'll buy you a fancy steak dinner. Also Philly has very small precincts, some of them literally in somebody's garage, so Romney getting zero votes in some of them isn't as ridiculous as it seems. Hey, we don't have people waiting in line for 8 hours to vote!
One more thing, as others said, this is a substantial victory in the popular vote considering our country's idealogical divisions. Over a 3 million vote difference now.
in some of those precincts in Philly where Romney got no votes there are ZERO registered republicans. as in none, no one, zilch. so yea not hard to understand that Mitt didn't get any votes there.
heard that the candidates only campaigned in 10 states this cycle. if you went by popular vote only they'd campaign in about 4 states and you'd only have to win about 4 or 5 states to win the election. I don't think the popular vote is the answer but i think tweaking the number of electoral votes per state is a better solution.
Registered Rep key word registered hard to believe no one voted for Romney seems
too absolute for my suspicious mind.
I would be up for reform, a new plan for the electoral college that keeps people voting
even when they are in the state of a different color. The swing state thing
is annoying for me, kind of takes the fun out of it.
if you win a state, you should only win the percentage of electoral votes of that states' allotment that equals the amount of votes you got. winning 51% of the vote and getting all 55 (California's, for example) electoral college votes is kind of stupid if you ask me.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Chalk up one vote here in favor of the Electoral College as is. The system may not be perfect but it works far more often than it doesn't and it is the only reason some of the smaller states have a voice. No candidate would pay attention to the Montanas, Wyomings and Idahos if we were in a popular vote system. There simply aren't enough votes in these states to make it worth spending the resources to campaign there. And don't say that no one campaigns in those states now. No one campaigns there only because their outcomes are not currently in doubt. New Hampshire has only four electoral votes and was as hotly contested as Ohio or Florida. As soon as any small state shows a hint of turning purple candidates will flock to it.
can someone explain to me why Ohio, which doesn't have the most electoral votes up for grabs, is consistently the make or break state for either candidate? shouldn't california be THE state?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Thank you I will
Looks like both Rep and Dems are behind this :thumbup: far out
Yeah, it ought to be a bipartisan thing, since deep red and deep blue states are equally harmed by the EC and can combine for 270 EV's to basically throw out the EC, but thus far it has only received support from blue states (I imagine this is a reaction to the Gore EC defeat, but it could have gone the other way in 2004 and maybe this year).
I've never understood the argument that the entire campaign would pander to big cities under a NPV system. There are people in big cities, people in suburbs, people in exurbs and people in rural areas. I don't think any one group would dominate the election.
Got to wonder how things would have been different when you think back.
I'm with the thought of one term 6 years then new Pres. for no other reason
but to condense time and action, then rejuvenate.
can someone explain to me why Ohio, which doesn't have the most electoral votes up for grabs, is consistently the make or break state for either candidate? shouldn't california be THE state?
Isn't it the amount of Independents/ switch hitters? I didn't google though.
if you win a state, you should only win the percentage of electoral votes of that states' allotment that equals the amount of votes you got. winning 51% of the vote and getting all 55 (California's, for example) electoral college votes is kind of stupid if you ask me.
It is an interesting option. As of last night a few states (Florida and Arizona, to name two) were not yet able to determine exact percentages, so I do worry that in a close election we would still be without a winner. The longer these things go the greater chance there is for after-the-fact shenanigans and legal challenges. I think the strife we saw in 2000 and to a lesser extent 2004 wold become the norm.
if you win a state, you should only win the percentage of electoral votes of that states' allotment that equals the amount of votes you got. winning 51% of the vote and getting all 55 (California's, for example) electoral college votes is kind of stupid if you ask me.
It is an interesting option. As of last night a few states (Florida and Arizona, to name two) were not yet able to determine exact percentages, so I do worry that in a close election we would still be without a winner. The longer these things go the greater chance there is for after-the-fact shenanigans and legal challenges. I think the strife we saw in 2000 and to a lesser extent 2004 wold become the norm.
it shouldn't take this long to count votes. in this day and age, there is no excuse for that. there should be a completely independent body that runs the elections, not partisan volunteers.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it shouldn't take this long to count votes. in this day and age, there is no excuse for that. there should be a completely independent body that runs the elections, not partisan volunteers.
It shouldn't, 100% agree. Before 2000 I wasn't even aware that it did take this long.
Chalk up one vote here in favor of the Electoral College as is. The system may not be perfect but it works far more often than it doesn't and it is the only reason some of the smaller states have a voice. No candidate would pay attention to the Montanas, Wyomings and Idahos if we were in a popular vote system. There simply aren't enough votes in these states to make it worth spending the resources to campaign there. And don't say that no one campaigns in those states now. No one campaigns there only because their outcomes are not currently in doubt. New Hampshire has only four electoral votes and was as hotly contested as Ohio or Florida. As soon as any small state shows a hint of turning purple candidates will flock to it.
...
Count me in.
Americans need to actually read the Constitution and its Amendments that define us as a Representative Republic... not a Democracy. This provides a voice for, as you have stated, the Montanas and Wyomings out there.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
if you win a state, you should only win the percentage of electoral votes of that states' allotment that equals the amount of votes you got. winning 51% of the vote and getting all 55 (California's, for example) electoral college votes is kind of stupid if you ask me.
if you win a state, you should only win the percentage of electoral votes of that states' allotment that equals the amount of votes you got. winning 51% of the vote and getting all 55 (California's, for example) electoral college votes is kind of stupid if you ask me.
I guess it is probably directly proportionate to the popular vote.
Maybe if they took turnout in each state into account?
California is worth 55 ECV, 80% turnout = 44 ECVs. Obama gets 26.048, Romney gets 16.896
These figures would have given Obama a slightly higher percentage win:
Obama: 50.40%
Romney: 47.94%
3rd Party: 1.66%
Looks like no matter how you stack it, Obama won.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.” Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
if you win a state, you should only win the percentage of electoral votes of that states' allotment that equals the amount of votes you got. winning 51% of the vote and getting all 55 (California's, for example) electoral college votes is kind of stupid if you ask me.
Chalk up one vote here in favor of the Electoral College as is. The system may not be perfect but it works far more often than it doesn't and it is the only reason some of the smaller states have a voice. No candidate would pay attention to the Montanas, Wyomings and Idahos if we were in a popular vote system. There simply aren't enough votes in these states to make it worth spending the resources to campaign there. And don't say that no one campaigns in those states now. No one campaigns there only because their outcomes are not currently in doubt. New Hampshire has only four electoral votes and was as hotly contested as Ohio or Florida. As soon as any small state shows a hint of turning purple candidates will flock to it.
...
Count me in.
Americans need to actually read the Constitution and its Amendments that define us as a Representative Republic... not a Democracy. This provides a voice for, as you have stated, the Montanas and Wyomings out there.
right but right now you have virtually no campaigning in the majority of states ... how is that possibly good? ... and ultimately it fuels a two-party system which is the primary reason everything is fucked to begin with? ... i really don't see how this electoral system can be deemed fair or for the betterment of the american public ...
can someone explain to me why Ohio, which doesn't have the most electoral votes up for grabs, is consistently the make or break state for either candidate? shouldn't california be THE state?
anyone?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
can someone explain to me why Ohio, which doesn't have the most electoral votes up for grabs, is consistently the make or break state for either candidate? shouldn't california be THE state?
anyone?
its a toss-up state with a lot of EVs (Florida too and now Virginia).
New York, Texas, California are a lot of EVs, but their outcomes are pretty much pre-determined
He used children on college campuses, and Latinos to win Florida
The young and the restless! 10 million less votes than 08
Hardly a mandate!
...
I wonder... are there any precincts out in the backlands of Wyoming where Obama got 0 votes? What about the outpost precincts in the Texas panhandle... any 1 or the 240 voters vote Obama?
If you find out, please, let me know.
Thanx.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
President Barack Obama won a second term by taking the majority of swing states. But a closer look at exit polling data shows Obama lost the independent vote in most of those states. Independents, who do not align with one political party or another, make up a fast-growing and coveted voting bloc.
A new infographic from marketing technology company Cognitive Match shows Mitt Romney garnered more of the independent vote than Obama in eight of the nine battleground states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Obama won more of the independent vote in just one battleground state, North Carolina; the only swing state Obama lost to the GOP nominee.
Things looked very different for Obama in 2008, when independent voters came out in huge numbers to support him. But there were indications throughout the president's first term that these voters had become disenchanted. Halfway through Obama's first term, the Los Angeles Times reported that independent voters "have swung dramatically in the other direction and are now deeply dissatisfied with [Obama's] job performance, the country's direction and the overall state of American politics," citing a poll from the nonprofit center-right group, the Independent Women's Voice.
Just before Election Day, the Wall Street Journal reported those polling numbers had hardly changed, with Romney overwhelmingly leading among independent voters across the country. Republican pollster Bill McInteruff told the Journal the Democrats were "really flirting with trouble if you're losing independents by this margin."
That "trouble" for Obama was ultimately not enough to push the election for Romney. But future presidential candidates likely can't ignore independents, who make up one of the fastest-growing groups of the American electorate.
JUPITER, Fla.—If current voter registration trends continue, both the Republican and Democratic parties may have a serious numbers problem.
Since President Barack Obama was elected in November 2008, the number of voters registered as independents or with a third party has surged in several key states, while those registered with both major parties have dropped off significantly. Among the six battleground states that provide monthly voter registration data (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania), all but the Buckeye State report more independent voters than four years ago.
In states like Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, both Republicans and Democrats alike have lost registered voters during that period. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the parties have shed a whopping 437,811 registered voters since the last presidential election.
Based on an analysis of registration data by Media Trackers, a state-focused nonprofit research group, there are 278,895 more independent registered voters in Florida than there were four years ago, 246,822 more in North Carolina, 244,814 more in Arizona, 169,944 more in Colorado, 33,470 more in Pennsylvania and 18,169 more in Nevada. While some of these voters are registered with third-party groups like the Libertarian or Green Party, most are registered independents. Still, the hemorrhaging of party affiliates in key states suggests that voters there are unsatisfied with the traditional Democratic and Republican operations.
A closer look at the data in these states also shows that Democrats appear to be losing registered voters the fastest. Since 2008, there has been a 9.5 percent decrease in the number of registered Democrats in Iowa, 6.6 percent in Pennsylvania, 5.8 percent in Arizona, 5.7 percent in Nevada, 3.8 percent in North Carolina and 3.7 percent in Florida. Meanwhile, Republicans have actually seen gains in Colorado, Florida and Iowa but losses in the other states. In Nevada, which saw a nearly 6 percent increase in independent voters, Democrats and Republicans have suffered an equal percentage of losses.
Despite the shift in these states, registered Democrats nationwide still outnumber Republicans, but the number of voters unaffiliated with the major parties continues to grow.
The trend first became apparent in December 2011, when a USA Today analysis showed what appeared to be an exodus from the major party registration rolls in several important states. By that time, more than 2.5 million voters had shed their official affiliations with the parties.
He used children on college campuses, and Latinos to win Florida
The young and the restless! 10 million less votes than 08
Hardly a mandate!
...
I wonder... are there any precincts out in the backlands of Wyoming where Obama got 0 votes? What about the outpost precincts in the Texas panhandle... any 1 or the 240 voters vote Obama?
If you find out, please, let me know.
Thanx.
I was going to ask this same thing.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
how can obama's strategy by racist if he got more african american and hispanic votes? It;s impossible to be racist against the majority by definition.. no white people in america should never claim they are being hard done by
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
I was speaking to the outdated voting system not to who won or how many votes
but very nice interactive map thanks I like it!
No you weren't. You said that 'something stinky' had taken place, in response to a thread topic that accuses the democrats of cheating the ballot.
Do you like the word no? yes?
To answer your accusation...
In another post I mentioned the absolutes of zero and I find that a bit unbelievable.
The something stinky is that feeling combined with the current system we have.
Our news here locally shows people in a warehouse days later muddling through paper ballots,
both Republican and Democratic, remember I am speaking non partisan.
It seems destined for mistakes and possible fraud.
Comments
heaven forbid people be more compassionate to each other. I think I heard your compassion
in another thread... moment of weakness?
No not at all it's all in the heart and brings understanding.
But remember you brought it up now and engaged
That's the Right's logic for ya!
too absolute for my suspicious mind.
I would be up for reform, a new plan for the electoral college that keeps people voting
even when they are in the state of a different color. The swing state thing
is annoying for me, kind of takes the fun out of it.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Got to wonder how things would have been different when you think back.
I'm with the thought of one term 6 years then new Pres. for no other reason
but to condense time and action, then rejuvenate.
It is an interesting option. As of last night a few states (Florida and Arizona, to name two) were not yet able to determine exact percentages, so I do worry that in a close election we would still be without a winner. The longer these things go the greater chance there is for after-the-fact shenanigans and legal challenges. I think the strife we saw in 2000 and to a lesser extent 2004 wold become the norm.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
it shouldn't take this long to count votes. in this day and age, there is no excuse for that. there should be a completely independent body that runs the elections, not partisan volunteers.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Keep your posts on the high road, everyone. Discuss the topic please or this thread will be closed permanently. Thanks.
It shouldn't, 100% agree. Before 2000 I wasn't even aware that it did take this long.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Count me in.
Americans need to actually read the Constitution and its Amendments that define us as a Representative Republic... not a Democracy. This provides a voice for, as you have stated, the Montanas and Wyomings out there.
Hail, Hail!!!
I just figured it out. Forgive my crummy posting of a table
Obama Romney Obama Romney 3RD Prty
Alabama 9 38.4% 60.7% 3.456 5.463 0.081
Alaska 3 41.6% 55.0% 1.248 1.65 0.102
Arizona 11 44.1% 54.2% 4.851 5.962 0.187
Arkansas 6 36.9% 60.5% 2.214 3.63 0.156
California 55 59.2% 38.4% 32.56 21.12 1.32
Colorado 9 51.2% 46.5% 4.608 4.185 0.207
Connecticut 7 58.4% 40.4% 4.088 2.828 0.084
D.C. 3 91.4% 7.1% 2.742 0.213 0.045
Delaware 3 58.6% 40.0% 1.758 1.2 0.042
Florida 29 50.0% 49.1% 14.5 14.239 0.261
Georgia 16 45.4% 53.4% 7.264 8.544 0.192
Hawaii 4 70.6% 27.8% 2.824 1.112 0.064
Idaho 4 32.6% 64.5% 1.304 2.58 0.116
Illinois 20 57.3% 41.1% 11.46 8.22 0.32
Indiana 11 43.8% 54.3% 4.818 5.973 0.209
Iowa 6 52.1% 46.5% 3.126 2.79 0.084
Kansas 6 37.8% 60.0% 2.268 3.6 0.132
Kentucky 8 37.8% 60.5% 3.024 4.84 0.136
Louisiana 8 40.6% 57.8% 3.248 4.624 0.128
Maine 4 56.0% 40.9% 2.24 1.636 0.124
Maryland 10 61.7% 36.6% 6.17 3.66 0.17
Massachussets 11 60.8% 37.6% 6.688 4.136 0.176
Michigan 16 54.3% 44.8% 8.688 7.168 0.144
Minnesota 10 52.8% 45.1% 5.28 4.51 0.21
Mississippi 6 43.5% 55.5% 2.61 3.33 0.06
Missouri 10 44.3% 53.9% 4.43 5.39 0.18
Montana 3 41.8% 55.3% 1.254 1.659 0.087
Nebraska 5 37.8% 60.5% 1.89 3.025 0.085
Nevada 6 52.3% 45.7% 3.138 2.742 0.12
New Hampshire 4 52.2% 46.4% 2.088 1.856 0.056
New Jersey 14 58.0% 40.9% 8.12 5.726 0.154
New Mexico 5 52.9% 43.0% 2.645 2.15 0.205
New York 29 62.6% 36.0% 18.154 10.44 0.406
North Carolina 15 48.4% 50.6% 7.26 7.59 0.15
North Dakota 3 38.9% 58.7% 1.167 1.761 0.072
Ohio 18 50.1% 48.2% 9.018 8.676 0.306
Oklahoma 7 33.2% 66.8% 2.324 4.676 0
Oregon 7 54.4% 42.7% 3.808 2.989 0.203
Pennsylvania 20 52.0% 46.8% 10.4 9.36 0.24
Rhode Island 4 62.7% 35.5% 2.508 1.42 0.072
South Carolina 9 44.0% 54.6% 3.96 4.914 0.126
South Dakota 3 39.9% 57.9% 1.197 1.737 0.066
Tennessee 11 39.0% 59.5% 4.29 6.545 0.165
Texas 38 41.4% 57.2% 15.732 21.736 0.532
Utah 6 24.9% 72.8% 1.494 4.368 0.138
Vermont 3 67.0% 31.2% 2.01 0.936 0.054
Virginia 13 50.8% 47.8% 6.604 6.214 0.182
Washington 12 55.9% 41.7% 6.708 5.004 0.288
West Virginia 5 35.5% 62.3% 1.775 3.115 0.11
Wisconsin 10 52.8% 46.1% 5.28 4.61 0.11
Wyoming 3 28.0% 69.3% 0.84 2.079 0.081
OBAMA 271.131
ROMNEY 257.931
3RD PARTY 8.938
I guess it is probably directly proportionate to the popular vote.
Maybe if they took turnout in each state into account?
California is worth 55 ECV, 80% turnout = 44 ECVs. Obama gets 26.048, Romney gets 16.896
These figures would have given Obama a slightly higher percentage win:
Obama: 50.40%
Romney: 47.94%
3rd Party: 1.66%
Looks like no matter how you stack it, Obama won.
we gotta work on that third party and stop compromising.
right but right now you have virtually no campaigning in the majority of states ... how is that possibly good? ... and ultimately it fuels a two-party system which is the primary reason everything is fucked to begin with? ... i really don't see how this electoral system can be deemed fair or for the betterment of the american public ...
anyone?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
its a toss-up state with a lot of EVs (Florida too and now Virginia).
New York, Texas, California are a lot of EVs, but their outcomes are pretty much pre-determined
I wonder... are there any precincts out in the backlands of Wyoming where Obama got 0 votes? What about the outpost precincts in the Texas panhandle... any 1 or the 240 voters vote Obama?
If you find out, please, let me know.
Thanx.
Hail, Hail!!!
A new infographic from marketing technology company Cognitive Match shows Mitt Romney garnered more of the independent vote than Obama in eight of the nine battleground states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire.
Obama won more of the independent vote in just one battleground state, North Carolina; the only swing state Obama lost to the GOP nominee.
Things looked very different for Obama in 2008, when independent voters came out in huge numbers to support him. But there were indications throughout the president's first term that these voters had become disenchanted. Halfway through Obama's first term, the Los Angeles Times reported that independent voters "have swung dramatically in the other direction and are now deeply dissatisfied with [Obama's] job performance, the country's direction and the overall state of American politics," citing a poll from the nonprofit center-right group, the Independent Women's Voice.
Just before Election Day, the Wall Street Journal reported those polling numbers had hardly changed, with Romney overwhelmingly leading among independent voters across the country. Republican pollster Bill McInteruff told the Journal the Democrats were "really flirting with trouble if you're losing independents by this margin."
That "trouble" for Obama was ultimately not enough to push the election for Romney. But future presidential candidates likely can't ignore independents, who make up one of the fastest-growing groups of the American electorate.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... wing-state
JUPITER, Fla.—If current voter registration trends continue, both the Republican and Democratic parties may have a serious numbers problem.
Since President Barack Obama was elected in November 2008, the number of voters registered as independents or with a third party has surged in several key states, while those registered with both major parties have dropped off significantly. Among the six battleground states that provide monthly voter registration data (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania), all but the Buckeye State report more independent voters than four years ago.
In states like Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina and Pennsylvania, both Republicans and Democrats alike have lost registered voters during that period. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the parties have shed a whopping 437,811 registered voters since the last presidential election.
Based on an analysis of registration data by Media Trackers, a state-focused nonprofit research group, there are 278,895 more independent registered voters in Florida than there were four years ago, 246,822 more in North Carolina, 244,814 more in Arizona, 169,944 more in Colorado, 33,470 more in Pennsylvania and 18,169 more in Nevada. While some of these voters are registered with third-party groups like the Libertarian or Green Party, most are registered independents. Still, the hemorrhaging of party affiliates in key states suggests that voters there are unsatisfied with the traditional Democratic and Republican operations.
A closer look at the data in these states also shows that Democrats appear to be losing registered voters the fastest. Since 2008, there has been a 9.5 percent decrease in the number of registered Democrats in Iowa, 6.6 percent in Pennsylvania, 5.8 percent in Arizona, 5.7 percent in Nevada, 3.8 percent in North Carolina and 3.7 percent in Florida. Meanwhile, Republicans have actually seen gains in Colorado, Florida and Iowa but losses in the other states. In Nevada, which saw a nearly 6 percent increase in independent voters, Democrats and Republicans have suffered an equal percentage of losses.
Despite the shift in these states, registered Democrats nationwide still outnumber Republicans, but the number of voters unaffiliated with the major parties continues to grow.
The trend first became apparent in December 2011, when a USA Today analysis showed what appeared to be an exodus from the major party registration rolls in several important states. By that time, more than 2.5 million voters had shed their official affiliations with the parties.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/inde ... ction.html
Hail, Hail!!!
I was going to ask this same thing.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
No you weren't. You said that 'something stinky' had taken place, in response to a thread topic that accuses the democrats of cheating the ballot.
what makes you so sure a different party will make a huge difference? what was your candidate's objective/platform?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
To answer your accusation...
In another post I mentioned the absolutes of zero and I find that a bit unbelievable.
The something stinky is that feeling combined with the current system we have.
Our news here locally shows people in a warehouse days later muddling through paper ballots,
both Republican and Democratic, remember I am speaking non partisan.
It seems destined for mistakes and possible fraud.
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues