81,000 signatures on Arizona revote and the people of Arizona are pissed

a reply to: Ghost147

Suing gets the cases into the court system.
It becomes an official record of wrongdoing, which can then be used a catalyst to change things.

resources.lawinfo.com...

Class action litigation has a long history of changing the way businesses do business and of protecting the rights of all Americans. In the 1950s and 1960s, several class action lawsuits were primarily responsible for racial desegregation in the United States. The 1954 class action decision of Brown v. Board of Education which prohibited racial segregation in schools, is arguably one of the most famous and important decisions reached by the United States Supreme Court. By the 1980s, the courts were hearing many class action cases about defective products including asbestos. Since those class action cases, the use of asbestos has been tightly regulated in the United States. Today, class action lawsuits are often brought because of defective products, to protect people’s rights, and to protect the environment.

The Effect of Class Actions on the Law

Furthermore, class action lawsuits often have an important impact on the law for two important reasons. First, settlements in class action lawsuits must be approved by the court after a judge issues a written determination that the settlement is fair. Additionally, class action settlements are often available as public information. Individual lawsuit settlements typically do not have detailed written approvals by the court and are often confidential, thus not making them valuable precedent. Second, class action lawsuits are often well funded because the costs of litigation are dispersed among all of the class members and defended by big companies or the government. Thus, class action lawsuits that are litigated are often appealed to the final stage and the finality of the class action decision is well respected.

For these reasons, class action settlements and verdicts often have a significant impact on the law.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Yeah, like the case in Ohio, Harkless v. Blackwell, in 2006, that resulted in all ODJFS recipients' voter registrations to be put on their database.

*AHEM* That would be the same database breached to smear Joe the Plumber, in 2008, on his child support record. Clearly, it is not secure.

Election reform is billed as good for voters, but the reforms actually open our election systems up to tampering.

We've been set up, again & again, by the two parties so that they can rig the votes through 'election reform.'

a reply to: BlueAjah

Again, I don't recall any recent presidents who sue companies in order for change. Could you provide an example of that?

a reply to: Ghost147

Trump is not yet a president.
He is exposing the problems and trying to initiate change in the manner available to him as a non-politician.

When he is president, he can then use the means available to him at that time

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

We'll see there has been a lot of anti government sentiment in the last few years and I think we're being pushed to our limit.

What "limit" would that be exactly?

There's nothing anyone can do.

We're forced literally at gunpoint to accept whatever whenever.

What are you thinking will or could happen when this "limit" is exceeded?

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Ghost147

Trump is not yet a president.
He is exposing the problems and trying to initiate change in the manner available to him as a non-politician.

When he is president, he can then use the means available to him at that time

I realize that. But I can't help but wonder, if suing is such a fantastic tool, why haven't presidents in the past used it? I mean, if it's so good at 'exposing the problem' then you'd expect it to happen all the time as a standard presidential action.

a reply to: Ghost147

Presidents don't "have" to sue. They have other ways to initiate change.

Lawsuits have long been used by normal citizens to initiate change and expose wrongdoing.

Of course, many do take advantage of lawsuits for personal gain.

But civil lawsuits are a powerful tool that has been used successfully for a long time to initiate change in many, many ways.

Let them vote it's things that voter ID would make work. If they have voter ID that is

originally posted by: BlueAjah
Lawsuits have long been used by normal citizens to initiate change and expose wrongdoing.

ACORN has filed many election reform lawsuits. So you can be sure nothing good came of that.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I know they don't have to sue, I'm just saying that you're making it appear to be this wonderfully powerful tool, so I don't understand why current and past presidents don't use it?

It makes me come to the conclusion that this is likely just another lawsuit that trump has done for personal gain and personal gain alone, just like his history of the thousands of lawsuits he's made against others for absolutely atrocious, immoral, or ridiculous reasons (like suing several people for $500 for making a joke about him and 'damaging his image').

Trump uses lawsuits to bully people and to progress his self worth and/or image. I cannot possibly see him doing so for 'the peoples sake' in a million years.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You are correct that since anyone can initiate a lawsuit, they can also be used for unethical purposes.
It is up to the court system to determine the validity of cases on a case by case basis.

But many positive changes for the benefit of Americans have resulted from lawsuits.
Without lawsuits, much corruption and many unethical practices would continue without challenge.

a reply to: onequestion
Bravo bravo I'll spread this vid around...like the song said stand up defend your rights!!..what happened in AZ was a travesty.

a reply to: Ghost147

Good Lord, Do you really, sincerely not understand that a president and others in government have powers that a normal citizen does not have and does not NEED lawsuits to initiate change?

Or are you just being argumentative?

ETA: I should mention that a President would certainly have a right to sue about something if they wanted to.
In the case of election reform, they would have other means to initiate such reforms.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
But many positive changes for the benefit of Americans have resulted from lawsuits.
Without lawsuits, much corruption and many unethical practices would continue without challenge.

Sure they have. Just not election reform lawsuits.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

There have actually been thousands of lawsuits filed over the years that have addressed election reform, with varying results.

Regarding the subject of the OP - I would say that AZ citizens have a valid cause to sue in this case.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: MotherMayEye

There have actually been thousands of lawsuits filed over the years that have addressed election reform, with varying results.

Regarding the subject of the OP - I would say that AZ citizens have a valid cause to sue in this case.

I've spent years researching election reform lawsuits. I've yet to find varying results.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: onequestion

I don't support a new vote every time someone doesn't get their way.

It would be chaos.

Much like a football game that ends on a bad call...you can be angry all you want, but the outcome isn't getting reversed just because you are salty about the result.

you're missing the point

it's indirectly about who won.
The real problem is not allowing people to vote at all

get yourself up to speed

I'll be following this, if it gets any traction. My bet is that Arizona officials will do nothing but offer lip service, and the election will stand as called, in favor of Hillary.

originally posted by: Metallicus
I can't get excited about any of the candidates we have. It is hard to feel energized about any of these people. I am going to go 3rd party most likely. I can't bring myself to just not vote.

Contrary to popular notions, not everyone should vote. It's far better to choose not to vote at all than to vote for someone if you don't like the choices. Fewer voters means that in the next election it takes fewer votes to be a viable candidate which makes it easier for someone that you might like to gain traction.

That seals it, sander's supporters are racist!


Only racist think the democrat establishment commits voter fraud.

Just because Hillary has won, how many coin flips, and Sanders' name has 'fallen' off the DC ballot and the Arizona mess. Those things happen all the time, well they happen all the time to people who are not members of the democratic establishment