Rigged voting machines are just the tip of the iceberg. There's a lot more going on at multiple levels.

Here's a compilation (mostly but not all videos) showing voting inconsistencies and fraud: http://www.dailypaul.com/238098/great-compilation-detailing-the-voting-inconsistencies-not-to-say-blatant-fraud

Mitt Romney is essentially owned by the same people as Obama (check out their top donors), and his popularity was essentially manufactured by the media. Do a Google image search for "Romney Crowd" and compare with "Ron Paul Crowd". That is something that's impossible to fake, so it tends to go unreported. If you ask Paul supporters why they support their candidate, and they'll talk about many different issues at great length. If you ask Romney supporters the same question, you tend to hear "I voted for him because we need to get rid of Obama" or "He's a businessman, and that's gotta be good for the economy, right?" The people are voting against something (Obama) instead of voting FOR something. This is the type of reasoning that tends to make the new boss the same as the old boss.

If you're willing to wade through a ton of charts and statistics (well, this IS Slashdot) then check out this longer version.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit?pli=1

There's been major election fraud to prop up Romney and reduce the vote counts of others (but usually Ron Paul), and this is one of the things that the RNC is being sued over. This is also why Ron Paul has won several caucuses when the primaries (with the rigged machines) said he didn't win. It's much harder to falsify a bunch of people actually showing up to elect delegates.

Rumors that the voting machines have been hacked? There's some pretty good evidence of algorithm vote flipping in this year's primaries. It's likely going to be part of a lawsuit.

Long Version: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumdkE4d0Y2eWtURTZ2eDM5RmlLc3ZhQQ/edit?pli=1

Short Version: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByJAC-sfXwumZzI2bVlON2VTMnFyYVZZSnpDYnNyQQ/edit?pli=1

Even with a paper trail, it's still not a complete solution. You could vote for candidate A, but when the paper is printed out later on, it has the vote counted for candidate B.

If you want secure voting, get a ballot box, have non-biased security guards (or a person from each campaign, ideally) watching it from the moment the election starts (and the box is shown to be empty) until the votes are counted. Live video of the box is streamed to the net. If the box ever needs to be moved, switch to streaming from cell phone cameras. The box needs to remain locked, with at least two keys (held by people from different campaigns\two separate unbiased parties) required to open it. Votes must be counted by hand and verbally announced, with streaming video of the ballots are they are read. Someone from each campaign should be there to verify that what is being read is accurate. I'm sure there are many other ways to make sure that election tampering isn't taking place, but the main problem is electronic voting machines.

I've had these headphones for about a year and a half now.

They're extremely comfortable and I can wear them for hours without trouble. They've got little 'wing' flaps that rest on your head which sounds odd but makes them fit very well. (If they still seem a bit loose if you have a smaller head, use a rubber band to help push the wings down against your head.)

They have almost no sound isolation, though. They're open-air, which means you can still hear everything around you, and people near you can hear what you're listening to. What's good about open-air is that it brings a huge soundstage, and this model has one of the biggest and best I've heard.

These headphones are excellent if you're a gamer, since you can hear things like gunshots, footsteps, etc and can easily tell where someone is by sound alone. The 3D positional audio with these is just amazing.

Bass is a little weak, but this can always be corrected with an equalizer if you really want. I find that they have enough bass to keep me happy, as I'm not one of those people who wants to be thumped by the music I'm listening to.

These headphones are LARGE. Don't expect to run or travel with these. You WILL look silly wearing them. There's a metal mesh on the outside of each ear that's purple, but it's not a strong horrid color. The wings rest on your head, and instead of a traditional headband there are two stiff rubber-coated metal(?) tubes that arc over the head. These will be sticking up about an inch or two from your head. Despite all this, I still love them.

Sadly I think that they would be inappropriate for the thread author because of the lack of noise isolation. That, and they can be bought for around $100. (at least I got mine for that much) which is double the price that was being requested.

I didn't mean to turn this into a headphone review, but do check out reviews especially if you are into gaming (my primary purpose for them, though they sound great with music and movies as well) and want some quality headphones with a large, expansive space to the sound. You'll find tons of reviews for them on Amazon, various audio sites, and even some gaming sites.

I see this "will of the people" phrase pop up a LOT among people who think the popular vote matters. It's used so often that I wonder what they're parroting it from.

The popular vote means nothing. It's all about the delegates. People who show up and taking a few minutes to vote in a booth are often uninformed and unmotivated. If you want to support your candidate, SHOW UP AT THE CONVENTIONS and vote on delegates! It's that simple. There's nobody stopping "the people" from showing up except the requirement of a greater commitment. Such people tend to be far more enthusiastic and informed about their candidates.

You think that CSPAN is trustworthy? This happened yesterday. Take a look. It's only 18 seconds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pots7T4vOT8

The problem is that voting machines are related to election fraud but not voter fraud. There doesn't seem to be a huge problem with voters hacking the machines to give more votes. It's the people who control the machines you have to worry about. Even if someone votes only a single time and there's no craziness like dead people voting, your approach of showing that someone's already voted won't solve the problem of election fraud.

Once those ballots are filled out and stored, SOMEONE has to count them. Remember, it's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes.

That said, I'd still much rather have a person counting votes instead of a machine. (I would have multiple people who don't all lean toward the same candidates\issues counting, while everything is recorded on video.) These voting machines have been proven in COURT to be easily hackable and can change thousands of votes in an instant. See here: Computer Programmer tells how voting process can be rigged.

Most of the US media is owned by only 6 companies, and the news isn't so much reported on these days but instead is created. http://frugaldad.com/2011/11/22/media-consolidation-infographic/

It's hard to find a news source that doesn't twist things to fit an overall narrative. One of the best sources I've been able to find is Ben Swann on his show "Reality Check". It's a local Fox station in Cincinnati. (Yes, I know that we hate Fox, but this is an exception.) He reveals things that nobody else is even talking about, things that people are lying about, etc. The man seems to be one of the few great reporters left in the country. Check him out here. http://www.youtube.com/user/benswannrealitycheck/

Ron Paul wants to demolish the TSA.

And the NDAA, and the Patriot Act, and that anti-protest law, and the ability to drone-kill Americans without trial, and many other shitty things that have been going on. His policies may not be perfect, but he's far ahead of anyone else where it counts.

Obama continued Bush's policies. Romney would continue Obama's policies. Right now we're swapping out team red with team blue, not realizing that they're the same. That said, there IS someone you can vote for who is against the kind of crap you mention. There is someone who wants to bring the troops home and stop these invasions of privacy.

That man is Dr. Ron Paul, and despite what the mainstream media has been saying, he's not only still in the race, but he's doing incredibly well. It's likely that we're going to see a brokered convention. He has thousands of people at his rallies, and he's getting a majority of delegates in several states. (Here's a tip: Don't look at the delegate counts you see in the newspaper or on your TV. They're way off and are just educated guesses based on the popular vote.) He's picked up 20 out of 24 delegates in Minnesota so far with more to come. He swept several districts in Iowa and Oklahoma. These are just examples of what is taking place around the country.

Since you're from a military family, please check out what a Marine Major has to say on the subject.

I don't believe that Ron Paul is a racist, because he sees people as individuals and not as groups. People often bring up the newsletters (which he did not write) but you'll never hear a racist remark come out of his mouth.

22 Reasons Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism

As for policies, you aren't likely to find a person who agrees with you 100%, but it might be a good idea to take a look at a man who had foresight into the problems that we've been having.

This speech was made 10 years ago. It shows that many of Ron Paul's predictions have come true. Whatever you think of the man, I encourage you at least check this out:

Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original)

Couple of hundred, maybe a thousand people tops in each.

You're kidding, right? At UCLA alone they had 5800+ people. The stadium was at capacity and people were climbing trees just to try and get a look. The fire marshal stopped letting people in, and hundreds were outside. Other crowds have been of similar sizes. In 2 consecutive days he got over 10,000 people at his rallies.

Here's a page with links to more better shots at UCLA. If you think that's only a thousand people, I certainly hope you don't have a job where you have to count very high. http://www.dailypaul.com/224747/msm-predicts-huge-ucla-crowd

Also, only partly related: Tonight Ron Paul swept up all the delegates at the caucus St. Charles County Missouri. Check #mocaucus on Twitter if you don't believe me. The others tried combining forces against Ron Paul and yet he still won by an amazing amount. This type of thing has been happening in multiple states. He has the support where it counts. I'd much rather have a candidate with support that's an inch wide and a mile deep than a candidate with support that is a mile wide but only an inch deep.

Perhaps you can explain it to these crowds that he doesn't have much real support: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150666962588207&set=a.128332363206.108799.79085878206&type=1&theater

Right on. Just when you think you can support him he says somethingthat makes you wonder what looney bin he escaped from.

I'm curious why so many people say this. Is it because the mainstream media is always saying "he's crazy"? A lot of people will parrot what they hear from the talking heads on TV. Could you be more specific about which of his policies you disagree with and why? Instead, people who have arguments against Ron Paul rarely seem to get beyond "He's nuts." They usually can't say WHY they think that way.