Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

In the 1800's, from 1828 to 1896, v**er turnout averaged 73.75%. Of course, it was only about 50 years after the revolutionary war (at the early end) and no doubt people were still feeling fairly patriotic or even politically engaged. In the 1900's (1900 - 1996) average turnout was 57.88%. That's almost half the v**ers tuning out. In 1996, v**er turnout actually dipped below 50% for the first time, that was the second Clinton e******n. In the last 4 e******ns (not including 2016), average turnout was 55.25%. If the decline continues in its current gradient, by the year 2100, just 3% of v**ers will be interested enough to v**e, which raises the question:

What if they held an e******n and only 3% of v**ers showed up?

Would it still be considered a valid e******n? Would the government formed after such an e******n even be legitimate? Essentially, 97% of the v****g population said "none of the above" by not even showing up to v**e. What if there was a space on the b****t to select 'none of the above' and 97% made that se******n? It would effectively be the same thing, would it not?

Shame I won't be around to see it. That's going to be very entertaining.

moldyoldy

Only a small percentage of people were allowed to v**e in the old days. Wealthy white men only.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Just missed another golden opportunity to keep your mouth shut. A lie by any other name is still a lie! It must be agony walking around in your skin and mind. Life is good! Enjoy it!

moldyoldy

And the t***h is still the t***h.



When America was still a collection of British colonies, v****g was extremely restricted. Only property-owning white men could v**e, which left out women, poor white men, s***es and free b****s, Native Americans, and in some cities, Jews and even Catholics. So it boiled down to wealthy white Protestant men electing other wealthy white Protestant men to office. Even though the current Congress is the most diverse in US history, the vast majority of members are still wealthy white Protestant men. All but two of our presidents fit that bill as well, the exceptions of course being Barack Obama, who is half black, and John F. Kennedy, who was Catholic.

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/v****g-history-america

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

You always justify your remarks after you put forth a false f**g. We're talking about America AFTER, AFTER, AFTER, AFTER, the revolutionary war. You'd go back to Plymouth Rock to prove a point. So what would you have us do for your screwed up notion of "fairness" - elect representatives based on a pre-selected quota of race, religion and financial status?

moldyoldy

Facts are still facts.

V****g rights in America in the early 1800s was a complex process because many politicians and government leaders supported s***ery, limiting v****g rights to those who were legally free. Women weren’t treated as equals with men, so their civil liberties, such as the right to v**e, didn’t receive a fair amount of attention. Socioeconomics and land ownership were also big factors in determining who could v**e, so the poor working class didn’t have many political freedoms either. V****g privileges were primarily granted to wealthy, white men.
Sponsored link

http://classroom.synonym.com/people-gained-right-v**e-early-1800s-16200.html

bahmer

Hey Moldy did you even read this statement at all?

In the 1800's, from 1828 to 1896, v**er turnout averaged 73.75%. Of course, it was only about 50 years after the revolutionary war (at the early end) and no doubt people were still feeling fairly patriotic or even politically engaged. In the 1900's (1900 - 1996) average turnout was 57.88%. That's almost half the v**ers tuning out. In 1996, v**er turnout actually dipped below 50% for the first time, that was the second Clinton e******n. In the last 4 e******ns (not including 2016), average turnout was 55.25%. If the decline continues in its current gradient, by the year 2100, just 3% of v**ers will be interested enough to v**e, which raises the question:

They were talking about v**er turnout in case you missed it. If you are illegal to v**e then you are not listed as a v**er got it. So women and non property owners and s***es etc. were not v**ers and so were not part of the v**ers because they couldn't v**e and so your statement is of no effect.

moldyoldy

Yes, a few landowners were the only v**ers, so the percentage was great. When more people are allowed to v**e, then the percentage of non v**ers goes up too.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Answer my question about v****g fairness.

moldyoldy

Fairness would be making v***r r**********n automatic for all eligible v**ers.
Making e******n day a holiday, or extending v****g days.
Make polling places more accessible in under served areas.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

How do we verify v**er validity and eligibility for all valid v**ers? T***h be told, we do not trust unions and democrats not to c***t. And you're really damn good at it. Really!

Who pays for a v**er holiday? In this past e******n Democrats were ahead until workers got off work and started v****g?

If v****g is a right and a privilege, which it is, why do some of us who live in the country drive miles to exercise that right while those in the cities need busing, free rides, and more places to v**e? And we are required to show valid v**er photo ID.

moldyoldy

The GOP does everything it can to suppress the v**e.
Closing polling places so people are in line for five hours.
Closing v**er ID places, or moving them to out of the way locations.

By the way, you forgot to admit your folly about early US v****g.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

You forgot to mention the 762 more v**ers in Detroit than registered population. I had to wait in a line and I drove miles to my polling location. And I know better than to believe the inflammatory excessive lies the left pulls out of thin air. You lost the e******n because as a nation Obama failed us, Hillary was a liar and c***t, and because Trump gave Americans hope. Your Marxist progressive secular philosophy may never raise it's evil, h**eful, race baiting, hedonistic, head again. You may well die out during the next four years especially as more and more of the Obama mob criminal activity is brought into the k*****g light of day. Beware!

moldyoldy

You are full of conspiracy tales, try verifying it other than reading right wing blogs.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/v**e-audit/95358702/

A lot of problems in Detroit where the democrats own the city. All the problems kept the b****ts from being part of the recount. Seems like crooked GOP politics.

Larry the Legend Loc: Not hiding in Milton

No, that is not necessarily true. V**er turnout is a percentage of those eligible to v**e who then actually do v**e. It has nothing to do with how many v**ers are eligible or what their social standing is. If you have a sum total of 2 v**ers, and one declines to v**e, then you have a 50% v**er turnout. If you have 100 million v**ers, and 50 million decline to v**e, you still have a 50% v**er turnout even though the difference in actual numbers is 49,999,999.

My muse in quoting those statistics was to wonder what would happen if the v**er turnout kept declining as it has been over the last 200 years or so, taking it down to somewhere around 3%. At what point does an e******n become a farce? Clearly a v**e from such a minority of v**ers could not be considered a mandate by any stretch. It's the old question, "what if they held an e******n and no-one showed up to v**e?"