Could it be that someone is going to win on purpose?

I don't think the title of the thread is the best but who cares. I found this picture on my Facebook news feed:

Click Here For Picture

Could this be something true? Can votes be voided if posted online?

If so, i got this idea: What if there is no chance of Obama or Romney winning... what if one of them is going to win no matter what. In order to do that, there has to be no accurate record of the amount of voters for each, or else a big scandal would break lose because of the votes being "off".

If someone votes for Obama or Romney, and posts their ballot online, now you have a record of someone who voted. So lets say 500 voters posted a picture online of their ballot...then that gives solid evidence that 500 people voted for Obama. So lets say they announce that Obama had 250 votes and Romney had 600, then there would be a big scandal cause there are 500 pictures of individual ballots for Obama that were posted online, making 250 be an impossible amount. Everyone would have to vote again or recount the votes.

What i'm trying to say is that maybe they don't want anyone/any source to have a record/evidence of a vote count. Therefore no one would have an exact clue of the amount of voters for each candidate, resulting in a perfect solution for forcing one person to win, not because the majority voted for one.

...You get me?

What do you think?

I think it doesnt matter who wins because they are all controlled from behind the scenes by the puppet masters.

the election is just to give the illusion of choice when in reality there is no choice.

reply to post by munkey66


I know that. Don't worry. Plus all of the things said during debates was crap. 4 Years ago Obama said: "When i'm elected, ill get everyone out of (what ever country he said, i think it was Afghanistan)." Then he's elected...next thing you know, he gives out speeches saying that hes going to send in some more ten thousand troops over to the middle east.

I expect the same crap talk from Romney, and again from Obama

reply to post by Kuroodo

Ummm... Sounds like more misinformation to me. Bad misinformation. I'm not sure why someone WOULD post their ballot online, outside something like the thread I made awhile ago wondering why they are all different to begin with. However....how can they possibly KNOW whose ballot is whose? I have never once seen a ballot (The ballot itself) with a name on it. Even my absentee ballots in past years have NEVER had a name of them. The envelope it's sent in? Sure...Of Course. The ballot itself? Never once. Maybe others DO...I've never seen it though.

So unless you post your name deliberately, I'd love to hear how the media thinks they or ANYONE else can prove who is who on an internet post for this purpose (and as quickly as would need done to do it).

I think it's absurd...all the way around. However those numbers at the bottom sure aren't and I'll add those to my growing list of known predictions from quasi-official sources or Media to compare with tonight. I have a bad feeling about this whole thing the more I hear as the day progresses. Will either side be able to accept results as legitimate??? I'm honestly not sure.

In some areas it is illegal to take photo images of polling places and completed ballots. That law is a wise one. Imagine having your boss demand that you vote a certain way and demanding photographic evidence of your vote. That is one scenario that the laws protect against.

That being said, even though it may be illegal to photograph the ballots in some locales, I don't believe that it would negate a person's vote. A person would have to be convicted of a felony before they can be disenfranchised.

Originally posted by NiteNGale2
A person would have to be convicted of a felony before they can be disenfranchised.

What difference does that make? There are so many things that are now "felonies" and they can declare anything they want to be a felony. Spitting on the sidewalk, or wearing your trousers too low could easily become felonies. How about posting anti-whatever articles or ranting against a tax law you don't like? they could become defined as "hate speech" and become felonies. A felony used to be reserved for only the worst, most despicable types of crimes. Now, anything can be a "felony".

It's technically a Class 4 felony.
According to 29-9 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes' Election Code, the practice falls under a prohibition of "unlawful observation of voting."


Source: www.nbcchicago.com...

Other states that ban photography or videography in polling places include Florida, George, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Texas and West Virginia, the social media news website Mashable noted.
It's likely better to just post a photo of your "I Voted" sticker or receipt.


Source: www.nbcchicago.com...

reply to post by DarthMuerte


I don't share your fear that "anything can be a felony". But, as to your question, "What difference does that make?", it makes a world of difference. Doing something illegal is not the same as being convicted of a felony.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

Originally posted by NiteNGale2
Now, anything can be a "felony".

Like 3 year old little boy peeing confront of his rural home because he couldn't handle it and didn't have a diaper on xD (OP of the incident)

It sounds like nothing besides bad information. Trying to exclude those that have been posted online would be logistical nightmare. Besides why would you want to photograph it anyway, what's the point? I remember who I voted for, I don't need a reminder.....

Originally posted by NiteNGale2
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

I don't share your fear that "anything can be a felony". But, as to your question, "What difference does that make?", it makes a world of difference. Doing something illegal is not the same as being convicted of a felony.

May I suggest you visit this website to see that my concerns are quite valid.