OK, It's a Stretch but Wouldn't it be GREAT if Rush Were Charged...

Thanks Rodney. Not too long ago I would have agreed with you about the electoral college. But since looking into it, I support it. Throughout our nation's history, only 4 times has a president won the popular vote but failed to win the white house due to the electoral college function. That was in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. So in 232 years, that has happened only 4 times. That is a pretty good track record. The other reason why I support it is that it prevents candidates from focusing exclusively on cities with huge population bases and ignoring the rest of the country. Even though some areas are more lightly populated, like Montana and Wyoming, they are just as important to our nation as New York or Florida or California. Issues effect them just as they do the rest of us and they deserve representation in the process as well.

Guardian, The reasons you stated you like the electoral college are the very ones I dislike it for(sorry)! I believe that is exactly what candidates do now is concentrate on the Californias and the New York and Floridas and leave the Montanas and Dakotas alone! A person could actually win the presidency by only winning in only 12 states! Just 12! Those would be Florida, New York, California, Texas, Pennsilvania, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia and Washington DC. What about the other 39 (DC is not a state) and territories like Guam and Puerto Rico? Where is their say if this were to happen? I know it's a stretch but if it's possible numerically it could happen!

Great post Guardian! The two things I believe that are anti-productive in or election process today are the "spread-out primaries" and the electoral college! All of the republican primaries held after Texas mean exactly, NOTHING! Republicans already know who their candidate is so this breeds apathy! America is as well informed today as they have ever been! News is instantaniously transmitted across the internet and available to virtually everyone! To say that America still needs a group of electors to hold their hand and cast the final vote is LUDICROUS! Let the popular vote stand! Didn't I read somewhere, "for the people BY the people"?

Don't you feel guilty making people that aren't that familiar with our political system think Democrats are called "Democratics"? Some people here are confused enough! Any candidate has the right to try to appeal to every voter, there is no law against that in any state. They're certainly not telling them to switch parties to vote for them in the primary only to vote against them in the general, are they? Maybe McCain will have a senior moment when he forgets who or what he is, but that's beside the point...lol. I totally agree with the primaries all being closed, which is what the Ohio primary IS. As I understand it, Ohio is the only state that has this particular law against switching parties for the primary without signing a pledge. I didn't make the law I only started a discussion about it. Obviously, I'm not going to arrest anyone but I will say if any Democrats switched to Republican so they could vote for someone in the hope of affecting their nomination, I guess they should be arrested too if they choose to enforce the law they have on the books. I thought you guys were the law and order bunch! Annie

Oops! I meant to add this to the end of the first paragraph. Personally, I would love to see Rush & Obama both argue against these charges. Both would win, the charges would be dropped, and finally we would see state's embrace closed primaries. Plus, I think Rush would have a dandy time fighting this one out in a courtroom!

Hello Annie, I'm glad to hear that you are stepping up to the plate for closed primaries. Perhaps you could begin convincing other Democrats to contact the Democrat powers that be to follow 'in suit'. As for Ohio, I would hardly call it a closed primary if one can switch their party affilitation that close to the primary though. To better exemplify: In my state, a candidate can only run in the party that he or she was/is registered in/as six months before the scheduled primaries. Where our state primaries are held in June, the party affiliation had to be established by Jan. 1st of the same year --or six months in advance. It would seem to me that if we are to stick with the same primary process, then why shouldn't voters and candidates have to follow the same time schedule? That is IF both parties are really on board with honest, ethical elections. Truth be told, I would much prefer a single, open primary nationally, or seven rotating, regional primaries, to be held no more than two to three weeks apart in the North East, South East, North Central, South Central, North West, South West, and extraterritorial regions. One person = one vote, with the Electoral College still in place to protect the smaller states. The former is by far my preference, though candidates scream for more time for baby kissing and hand shaking. Of course, this change will never happen because the parties' leadership would never be willing to give up the power, or the cash that is generated in long primary seasons! Although, I have to say that this prolonged primary season is giving me much food for thought! Had we had a single national primary, then Hillary would have been coronated, just as she had expected. We would never have had a segment of the population take to seeing a halo over Obama's head -- as he would have never gotten up to bat. We certainly wouldn't have had McCain emerge as the Republican nominee -- we'd probably have seen Guiliani emerge as the nominee. So, all in all, I'd have to counter my earlier opinions about this prolonged primary season, and speculate that it has provided a more transparent opportunity for the voters to learn some valuable lessons about the party flaws, and a myriad of terribly flawed candidates. This election season has given the average American a glimpse of just how messy our political arena really is! So then, you would be on board with Rush, Obama, and now it seems Clinton all being charged for voter fraud? Because, as this story unravels, the hullabaloo is that Hillary has also attempted to lure Republican voters to her camp. So, if Rush faces charges, the so too should Clinton & Obama. The main difference is that Rush would enjoy it, and probably get a boost from it, while the Democrat front-runners would be excoriated by the media. So, the more that the Dem's push for Rush to be charged, the more that the G.O.P. will push for the Democrat candidates to be likewise charged. Hmmmm, what is the punishment for a candidate having engaged in election fraud????? Yup, that could be kind of fun to watch!

We're really not in disagreement here, Ladyluna. I'm all for all primaries being closed but the point is Ohio does have a closed primary, they just have stricter regulations in place for those who choose to switch party affiliation right before the primary. If a state has an open primary then no candidate is breaking any law by appealing to members of the opposite party and independents for their votes. I'm opposed to that in that I'm opposed to open primaries in principle. I'm unsure what should be done for Independents, it doesn't seem fair for them to have no voice at all in the nominating process. In sumnation, this Democrat is stepping up to the plate and supporting closed primaries, no if's, and's or butt's about it. Annie

You may think it's a load of crap but according to the statute, as it was explained by attorneys on TV as well as in the article I linked to, Limbaugh could indeed be charged. Don't you think he's owed one? He should have gone to jail for doctor shopping as anyone else would have under the same circumstances that didn't have a famous name and millions of dollars. Annie

Based on the statute that bobnmo linked to there is absolutely nothing that could apply to Rush Limbaugh. In addition to that the law is clearly not enforceable because if applied, it could potentially take away a person's voting rights if they voted differently in one election than the voted in the last two years. A person should not be afraid to vote as they choose and no law should be able to punish a person for voting as they choose. Frankly, I'm offended that such a law even exists. Either way, everything in that law applies to the voter's, not some guy who says that voters should change parties for a day. No, I don't think he's owed one. The doctor shopping bit isn't that big a deal. Frankly, it's not even that uncommon. It's actually rare for anyone to be prosecuted under it regardless of celebrity status.

Now, Pro, you know I'm not saying that. I merely started this discussion after reading and seeing about this law I hadn't been aware of in Ohio. "Everyone forget about some people switching or voting for Kerry back in 04 just to get back at Bush?" Unfortunately, not enough of them did that, did they, or we wouldn't be in the shape we are now. But, I agree everyone has the right to vote for whomever they wish. Those people who voted for Kerry in 04 didn't do so to help Bush get re-elected, did they? I agree with what Dam Abrams has said repeatedly, that while it may be legal most places to switch parties and vote for the person you want to LOSE in November it's not moral. I don't think it's my place to help the GOP choose their nominee either. OK, so these things have been going on for a long time; they were wrong then, too and they're wrong no matter which party is doing it. It all got more attention this year since Limbaugh put his two cents in. Annie

Yes, but this was my reaction to the whole event either way. You may have been trying to be funny but I didn't absorb the humor (for certain reasons).

I know this is off subject (a little) but by saying Rush's actions are not acceptable what does that say about you for being willing to excuse Obama's pastor for racial and hate slurs toward the "rich white people" in America or his G** Da** America? Just a thought. By the way Annie, Gewcew might not have typed it in right but the meaning is something like the pot calling the kettle black. These two DID appeal to republican voters who were on the fence to switch and vote for them, still against that ridiculous law!

"These two DID appeal to republican voters who were on the fence to switch and vote for them, still against that ridiculous law!" I still say what they did is not against that law or any other law. They didn't ask people to switch to vote for them and then vote against them in November. Limbaugh made it clear he was encouraging people to commit fraud according to the law in Ohio. Annie

Thank you so much for posting a link to the actual statute. Now everyone can see clearly that the law is garbage and completely unenforceable. Even if it were, there is nothing in that statute that would apply to Rush Limbaugh.