Um, the majority deprive a minority of the right to vote? Nope, could not happen in a million years. Nice set up TOM.
— Mike Sulzer

Haven't you just described the Electoral College?

Isn't the effect of the Electoral College that the votes of the minority in any particular state don't count?

My bet's on McCain throwing both Hagee and Parsley under the bus. But I'm not sure what the focus will be.

My sarcasm fell flat there. I agree that this describes the electoral college. But that was not the intended meaning, which was the limitation of minority voting rights through poll taxes, examinations, and just plain intimidation. More subtle than passing a law that says that some group cannot vote, but similar in effect.
— Mike Sulzer

Don't forget Florida's felonious list of felons. And, of course, voter suppression is only part of the picture. The other part that obviates the need for a law disenfranchising the minority, as both Stalin and Boss Tweed are alleged to have pointed out, is who gets to count the votes. When the votes are counted by a corporation that has vowed to deliver the election to a particular party, and when the state chairman of that party's candidate's campaign is the one who gets to certify that the count is correct, who needs a law disenfranchising the minority. In fact, who even needs to be the majority.

Along these lines, if you haven't seen this yet, don't miss it:

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidentally_leaks

Frankly - that video would be funnier if there wasn't so much truth to it.
— Pedinska

It is nigh impossible to write satire in the present political climate. In the words of the newly-coined acronym YJCMTSU (you just can't make this stuff up). These people cannot be satirized. You write up something that you think is satire and three weeks later it looks like a documentary.

The primary reason you are slow on getting it is because of your maleness. Many of us have that problem.
— Retired Military Patriot

Indeed, I have often pondered on the conundrum of whether, if a man says something and there is no woman to hear it, is it still wrong?

Hell yes don't pass it by. It's something to see Serious experts not only say they were wrong, but even more startling to say they now realize the importance of Glenn and his friends
— Retired Military Patriot

Even though it isn't April 1, check out the dateline before you start to celebrate.

if you want some cheering news that is legit, check out this:

http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/05/19/daily77.html

Comments, WT?

Thanks for the report from the ground. I'm sure the thought of the great unwashed protesting their $25,000 paying guests was a serious factor. Just wondering if perhaps they were moving the venue from the Phoenix Convention Center to a quonset hut at Luke AFB. Sure, it would be a violation of the Hatch Act (but who keeps track of such things, anyway), but at least they'd be able to control access. Fabulous! — not only do they run the government in secret but they have to have their fundraisers in secret too.

There is no "fear of third parties".

If there were, Lincoln (The Republicans were a third party) and Teddy Roosevelt (Bull Moose Progressives), to name the most recent, would never have been elected. You are no political scientist and neither am I but the problem is institutional and structural.
— L.W.M.

Teddy Roosevelt was never elected as a Progressive (Bull Moose) Party candidate. Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency on the assassination of McKinley in 1901. He won the election of 1904 as a Republican. In 1908 the Republican nomination and the election went to William Howard Taft. Roosevelt's split with Taft did not come until 1910. Roosevelt walked out of the Republican Party when he did not get the nomination at the Republican convention that year and ran on the Progressive Party ticket. While he outpolled Taft in the election, the overall result of the Republican Party split was to hand the 1912 election to Wilson.

Please try to be more careful with your facts.