Nonsense. Results have matched extremely closely with polls coming in. Discrepancies with exit polls are small AND exit polls have always favored more ardent supporters and younger supporters.
People who are more enthusiastic about their choices are more likely to do exit polls. Get over it. Hillary Clinton is going to win this nomination because she won (by far) the most votes. That doesn't mean you have to like her, like the way this system works, or want her to be President. I support her out of all the candidates running and I don't like ANY of those things! But let's stop the conspiracy theory nonsense and move on to things that matter.
Looks like some picking and choosing of data. I hate Hillary, but You need better data than this if you want to be taken seriously when accusing a candidate of voter fraud.
> Democracy is far too important to be left in the hands of the people, it would seem
This was the sentiment of the founding fathers (any polisci student will tell you). They actually didn't trust the democracy to the masses, and is why they chose to implement the electoral college system.
> Democracy is far too important to be left in the hands of the people, it would seem.
Very contradictory, and some would say elitist. Many of the problems with our democratic republic system (we don't live in a democracy) arise due to the entrenched oligarchic power structure and excessively lenient campaign finance laws, which basically give the power of the purse to corporations and executives. The people are not to blame when political parties only choose to push candidates who have wholly existed within this power structure and are completely out of touch with the needs of the country as a whole.
If a government represents its people within constraints (avoiding discrimination or prejudice and avoiding harm to people by way of a Millian criminal justice system), those people should logically be happier.
Examples: marijuana legalization, welfare, basic living income, civil liberties, non-interventionist foreign policy, checks and balances on law enforcement.
If the government couldn't be trusted with the masses, voter suppression laws would be successful at turning the tides of the country away from unrest and inequality and unhappiness. They haven't, and to suggest otherwise is a laughably elitist and ridiculous sentiment.
No, not elitist. It recognizes that the will of the people must be done, but... not so fast. The problem is the will of the people can be really immoral and can cause rampant chaos and riots. Beheadings, storming the castle, all that.
The whole idea is for the electoral college to dampen the swings. Stability benefits all.
Sure, change. Progress. But deliberate change. Slow change.
Take one example: Gay rights. Clinton the 1st passed "don't ask, don't tell" in .. what? 1993? And then we let the whole issue simmer for a generation. Because that's what it takes. It takes old people dying off, for the population to come around to a better way of running things.
The right to vote should be made easily accessible to all eligible voters and the voting counts should be independently verifiable. The Board of Elections isn't an independent structure as it is organized today.
I'm in favor of paper ballots counted by hand. Blockchain technology could also be an interesting possibility to explore.
The large number of unexplained switched voter registrations are very worrisome and the system in place has yet been incapable of offering answers on this matter.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/outrage...
From WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/22/ho...
Another good one: http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2004/12/what_is_the_sam....