Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Popular Vote vs Electoral College
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 31 of 118 (903661)
12-14-2022 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
12-14-2022 7:15 PM


Re: Proportional EC
AZPaul3 writes:
The majority within those two voting blocks along the coasts determines the election.
But if it was by Population, your vote in California would count just as much as your vote in South Dakota. So if you were Republican and lived in California or Massachusetts, your vote would still count in the national totals. IT IS the Winner Take All that is the problem. Get rid of that. But assigning electors proportionately - while a vast improvement - still has a screensize resolution problem. Maine (I think) divides their 5 electors by popular vote, which means that the voting population is divided by 5 to REPRESENT Maine, when they could just use the raw numbers. It may have made sense when the voting was reported back to D.C. on horseback and no one had a telephone, but now we can count right down to the 155 millionth vote.
I know someone who actually moved to Maine from Massachusetts so his Republican vote would count. Now I vote BLUE BLUE BLUE, so I am okay for now.
There is a good point about visiting these fly-over states to campaign, but that is all stemmed from another problem, the worst problem with the human species: advertising, even the shittiest kind, actually works.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 12-14-2022 7:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 12-14-2022 9:51 PM xongsmith has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 38 of 118 (903674)
12-15-2022 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by AZPaul3
12-14-2022 9:51 PM


Re: Proportional EC
AZPaul3 writes:
I was talking about 'by population', I think? The two coasts of the United States, within 100 miles of each coast, if I have my numbers right, is where a super majority of people (voters) live.
Right. But I was talking about all the voters in solid Blue (or even solid Red states like my Dem friends in Arkansas) who also feel like it's a waste of time to vote. Probably more of them than in all the fly-over states, like South Dakota or Montana, all told. I am sure there are more, totalled on the coasts, that just don't vote because they always lose. For them, switching to a population vote makes their vote count just as much as a vote anywhere, so they would go vote. Right now they feel disenfranchised.
Originally, to vote you had to be a male white owner of LAND. these fly-over states are sort of the last bastions of LAND power left.
Your plan might be feasible, whereas the population plan might be too large a change to pass congress, so yay! let's go!
on the other front we only need 75 more electoral combination of states to join in on the plan to cast all electoral votes to the general population winner. this would effectively make it the population winner.
but this gives me a bad feeling: if a state votes overwhelmingly against the country-wide winner and then the state gives all it's EC votes to the country-wide winner. A sort of big Fuck You to their own citizens.
So just get rid of the EC, go to population, explain that to all of your relatives in California who could then vote with their South Dakota relatives for their Republicans and it will count. Make it a team effort. If they still lose, well, have the Republican Party leaders actually do something for them instead of blocking my Progressive Democrats by any way they can.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 12-14-2022 9:51 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 10:25 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(2)
Message 39 of 118 (903675)
12-15-2022 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Phat
12-15-2022 1:44 AM


Re: Why do they call it Partisan Politics?
Phat writes:
All I can do is judge them by what they say.
NO. You judge them by what they DO.
Like when the Republican-dominated state legislatures close polling sites and make the poor and POC have to drive 50-70 miles to vote, while the white upper class neighborhoods vote only a couple of blocks away.
Like when the Republicans vote unanimously NO to spending more money for veterans, or to investigate price gouging at the gas pump. This isn't your father's "Left Wing of the same bird as the Right Wing" joke any more. The GOP wants 90% or more of the country to be minimum wage slaves to their 1% super rich buddies in the Fossil Fuel Industry, in the Big Pharma Phuckers, yunno, as George Carlin put it, it's a rich club and _You_ aint in it.
And before you cry "the Dems take money from them too!", well, you would rather have them bring a knife to a gunfight?
Arent you a Union man? The Repugnants HATE Unions and want to end them all. Reagan dismantled the Flight Controller Union nearly on his Day One.
You judge them by what they DO.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Phat, posted 12-15-2022 1:44 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 52 of 118 (903731)
12-15-2022 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by ringo
12-15-2022 12:03 PM


Re: A Rancher vs UCLA Berkley
ringo writes:
Typically, the party in power spends money like water and the opposition questions every penny.
well, typically they want to spend the money on things they like instead of what the other party spends it on when they are in power.
Repugnants like to cut taxes for their corporate donors and spend money on the military.
Democrats like to balance the budget and pay as you go, even if that means raising taxes on the wealthier. they also make sure the military has "enough", which is far less than what the Repugnants want. And then they want to divert funds to the poorer people while the Repugnants say "fuck those people".

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by ringo, posted 12-15-2022 12:03 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 54 of 118 (903735)
12-16-2022 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by AZPaul3
12-14-2022 7:15 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
AZPaul3 wrote back in message 30:
Without something like the EC, if going strictly by popular vote, then my sister's vote in New York City will help determine the election while your vote in Dallas does not even need to be registered as it will have no effect on the outcome.
I have seen this quoted in other posts as well and after thinking about it, I'm sorry and I have to say:
BULLFUCKINGSHIT! This can only be true if Dallas's state, Texas, has made a Winner Take All clause on the state's popular vote and then sends all of their EC votes to that Winner Took All.
Hey, this is even why Proportional EC is bad, because which EC elector did your Dallas vote get assigned to?
What if your Dallas vote was the only one for your candidate in Texas, so it gets rounded off to ZERO electors,
but the national totals were 1 national vote short of your Dallas vote making the difference?
Hypothetical to the extreme, but serves to rule it out when they already have the technology
to do an accurate total national population vote.
My apologies, AZPaul3, as you do have a VAST improvement to the existing EC system.
But with Total Population voting, your Dallas vote gets counted along with your sister's New York vote.
They would all get tossed into the big bins at the national level, regardless of which state they came from.
Nope, count them all. Use the popular vote, every vote counts!
Now as to campaigning, maybe make that illegal. Have the League of Women Voters keep a listof what bills
and positions all candidates took on all issues and make it available to everyone every week forever.
But that's another story....

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by AZPaul3, posted 12-14-2022 7:15 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 59 of 118 (903789)
12-16-2022 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by AZPaul3
12-16-2022 12:31 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
AZPaul3 writes:
My point for this discussion is that an electoral college type of setup forces, as we see today, presidential candidates to spend more political attention interior to the coasts. We should want to keep that.
Why?
As I have pointed out, there are more disenfranchised voters in the solid Blue or solid Red coastal states
than the total of all the fly-over states. As it is now, they spend more time in the so-called swing states
than your interior states, because of the Winner-Take-All EC system.
When was the last time any candidate spent much time in Montana? Wyoming? South Dakota?
I DONT WANT TO KEEP ANYTHING RESEMBLING THE EC SYSTEM.
The EC system requires adjusting the number of electors every once in a while to correspond to the number of
Representatives according to the latest population statistics*, plus the hard-coded undemocratic 2 Senators per state.
A simple popular vote saves all the money spent on that and goes directly to democracy.
* i know we need to do population, but every 10 years isn't enough for the House which is every 2 years.
Goes out of date real fast. Maybe instead just make a threshhold and have all candidates run in their state At Large.
I dunno, maybe anyone who gets 100,000 votes goes to the House. That'll increase voter participation. and you get a
constant Representation ratio. And having them run at large eliminates jerrymandering issues.
Just proof of state residence (hello Texas Walker).
Yes, this increases the House to some 1550 Representatives in 2020, but that reduces the effect of the undemocratic
2 Senators per state. Wait! I'm still thinking subconsciously about the EC for each state - so nevermind that point.
Instead it makes the Senate more powerful relatively with its share of constitutional duties.
Maybe make the threshhold 250,000 votes, or a 2020 House of 620. ( Or 300,000 for a House of 517ish.)
In 2016 321,271 people of Alaska voted, so if they all voted for one person, they would have 1 Representative.
What about Wyoming? In 2016 there were 447,212 eligible voters of which 258,788 voted,
or grizzlybearly (barely) at most 1 possible Representative.
Holy shit: Number of Registered Voters by State 2022
Even if you combine Wyoming and Montana or North and South Dakota into single states, as I think Bill Mayer
suggested, you still have egregious inequalities by state boundaries. AGHH!
Maybe have all the Representatives and Senators elected in a national At Large election? Gack!

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 12:31 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 5:04 PM xongsmith has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 61 of 118 (903794)
12-16-2022 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by AZPaul3
12-16-2022 5:04 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
AZPaul3 writes:
I don't get this. Just because your side lost does not mean you were disenfranchised.
​
I vote BLUE, so this time my side won. What I am talking about is a Republican voter in Massachusetts feeling that his or her vote is a waste of time. Or a Democrat in Arkansas, for example. I know someone who was a Republican and he moved to Maine where his vote would count. He was sort of an asshole anyway, so I didn't mind him leaving. BUT he definitely felt disenfranchised here in Massachusetts. Capisch?
Last election swing states included Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, interior states all. And the list changes every election.
​
What are you talking about?
And Florida, hardly interior. What I'm talking about is removing State boundaries completely so the California Republican can team up with her South Dakota Republican relative and both votes count equally. And my friends in Arkansas can team up with me in Massachusetts and have our votes count equally. Get rid of the EC completely. Explain to the Wyoming voter that now all their relatives in California can now have their vote count just as much.
AND make all campaigning ILLEGAL. Have the League of Women Voters post weekly lists of every candidate's voting record and positions on the issues, not only through an election cycle, but every week in perpetuity.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 5:04 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 6:21 PM xongsmith has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 63 of 118 (903806)
12-16-2022 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AZPaul3
12-16-2022 6:21 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
AZPaul3 writes:
Bullshit. That is NOT being disenfranchised. That is losing the election. Doesn't matter if it happens multiple elections in a row. You voted. You lost. You were NOT disenfranchised. Capisce?
where do you get "multiple elections in a row" from? you are not listening. i am talking about BEFORE the election.
technically you are correct, but listen: I vote Blue and we won. its the Repugnant voters living in Massachusetts who _feel_ disenfranchised, not me. one even left the state to move to Maine. they feel they're disenfranchised before they even vote, often not even bothering to vote at all.
i maintain that there are more of these kind of people on the coastal states than all of the so-called fly-over states combined that hardly get attention anyway. the attention is given to swing states because of the horrible EC Winner-Take-All rules for 48 of the 50. and there are solid Red states, too, like Arkansas, South Carolina (an east coast state) and so on. why penalize someone because of the state they are living in?
your solution is great, but mine is better because of your round-off errors to shrink the total popular vote down into the number of EC boxes. look at how the number of EC boxes is determined by adding the 2 Senators to the number of Representatives. We already tally the total population vote accurately anyway.
So what did you think of my plan to outlaw campaigning? especially the impact it would have on campaign financing (reducing that to ZERO)?

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 6:21 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 7:45 PM xongsmith has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 64 of 118 (903809)
12-16-2022 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by xongsmith
12-16-2022 7:31 PM


Re: Proportional EC better but not as good
think of it this way: the current Winner-Take-All method we have today "discards" all the loser votes - it throws them out by the tens of millions, some on one side, some on the other side, state by unequally sized state. the popular vote adds them all up in a big national total on each side, or even a third party, too. your argument over what that does to campaigning in Podunk, Idaho versus Manhattan, NY is true if you allow campaigning in the first place.
imagine if the Koch brothers couldn't send a penny. Or Big Oil. Or Big Pharma.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 7:31 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 9:19 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 65 of 118 (903812)
12-16-2022 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by xongsmith
12-16-2022 7:45 PM


Re: Proportional EC better
in California alone the totals were
Dem Rep
11,110,250 6,006,429
About 47% of registered voters are Democrats, 24% are Republicans, and 23% are independents.
as of date - - - - registered, voted, percent
11/8/2022 497,561 310,071 62.32%
So about 38% of the voters did not vote. Assuming a similar rate, the 6,006,429 Republicans that did vote were thrown into the trash barrel. yeah, tough on them. But it means that somewhere around 4 million did not vote. How many of them just gave up and felt they had been "disenfranchised" and their vote wouldn't count anyway, since Winner-Takes-All? Maybe half or 2 million. I contend that this would swamp out the fly-over Republican votes unfairly represented today by the EC, when you add in the other solid BLUE state Republican give-ups. Although in this case, being a BLUE voter i am happy about that, on a Neutral, Objective Level this is wrong in a democracy. Winner-Take-All must be abolished.
I would whole-hearted endorse AZPaul3's plan of a kind of Maine/Nebraska splitting the EC, if we cannot get rid of it entirely.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2022 7:45 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 10:33 PM xongsmith has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 67 of 118 (903815)
12-16-2022 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by AZPaul3
12-16-2022 10:33 PM


Re: Proportional EC better
AZPaul3 still doesn't get it:
So if we went to a popular vote for president and your red friend lost, would you or he consider himself disenfranchised?
Don't be silly. Of course not.
He wouldn't have to fret about living in a state where his vote would be thrown away.
It would remain alive until the final national tally was determined.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 10:33 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 10:43 PM xongsmith has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 69 of 118 (903820)
12-17-2022 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by AZPaul3
12-16-2022 10:43 PM


Re: Proportional EC better
AZPaul3:
In his state his vote was "thrown away" because he and his lost the election. If you define disenfranchised that way it should apply equally at any level. Now he lives in a nation that just threw out his vote.
First off *I*, personally, don't define "disenfranchised" that way. It was the way some Republican friends here in Massachusetts were *feeling" about it. It was thrown away because of our agreed evil in the "Winner-Take-All" rules of 48 states. I mean, why are we arguing? We agree that the EC Winner-Take-All as it stands today has got to go.
Secondly, you are right that the nation just threw out his vote, along with all the other losing votes. But he didn't know until the end. There would be no Cronkite type coming on while voting was still going on out west with "...and now we can project that Biden has won Massachusetts...."
In your scenario, the Cronkite type might say that "we project that Massachusetts has now come in with 7 electors for Biden, 4 for Trump and 1 for Bernie and 1 for Johnson." and the totals would then be updated on a big board on TV while voting continued out west. Exciting.
Whereas, in my scenario, there would be nothing to report yet. Boring.
That's true......

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by AZPaul3, posted 12-16-2022 10:43 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 12-17-2022 3:54 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 71 by ringo, posted 12-17-2022 11:23 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 72 of 118 (903883)
12-18-2022 12:10 AM


The USA is a very Scary country
I think the most frightening thing in the last election was the popular vote:
Popular vote 81,283,501 to 74,223,975
74+ million IDIOTS! WTF???
it should have been Biden winning 141 million to 14 million at best.
the EC went 306-232, so in this case it favored the Dems more than it should have.
Still it has to go. By population percentage it would have been closer to 276-262.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nwr, posted 12-18-2022 12:19 AM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 12-18-2022 12:13 PM xongsmith has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(2)
Message 79 of 118 (903919)
12-18-2022 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
12-18-2022 12:13 PM


Re: The USA is a very Scary country
Phat argues:
Simply being "better than Trump" is hardly enough.
Agreed. But Biden has been nothing short of spectacular.
Remember he has to deal with every one in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
The Democrats are currently providing food and shelter and comfort to ex-GOP people in Congress. You've no doubt heard of the problem of leading them being compared to herding cats? Once the fascist GOP is deservedly destroyed and goes the way of the Whig party, then all the myriad components hiding in the true patriot Democrats can finally break up into the 3 or 4 sub-parties and your nightmare of "one party rule" is over.
I will most likely join the Progressive AOC wing or the Warren wing. Or maybe I'll join the Bernie wing. Some will form and join an old-fashioned conservative Corporate wing and welcome, if not Mitch McConnell, his allies back into their fold. Liz Cheney will find a home there. The Moderates, Left and Right, will probably continue to accept huge donations from the corporate CEOs, who are actually the ones writing the legislation that is then passed, while these moderates never commit to anything.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 12-18-2022 12:13 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Phat, posted 12-19-2022 9:55 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 89 of 118 (903974)
12-19-2022 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AZPaul3
12-19-2022 12:33 PM


Re: Proportional EC
AZPaul3 writes:
You have $1000 to schmooze with. Are you going to spend that chasing 15 votes in Manhattan KS or 10,000 in Manhattan, NY?
In my scenario you get arrested for campaigning. Schmoozing is illegal.
The League of Women Voters posts weekly voting records and positions on the issues for everyone to see.
It makes them spend time in swing states which can be anywhere on the map.
Exactly. Look at swing states and battleground states from past elections. Lots of interior states (Arizona, Michigan, Illinois). That's because the state's electoral votes are the prize. There are no battleground states in a popular vote scheme.
But in a proportional EC system, which ones are swing states? Do you schmooze the 3 elector state of Wyoming or the 55 elector state of California? A bit of schmoozing in California could sway several more multiples of proportional EC votes than the what the sparse states have to offer. Remember, there is no Winner-Take-All.
The solution is for the sparse state families to team up with the now important big state families, family by family. There is no penalty for where you live any more. And get rid of all the schmoozing by making campaigning illegal. Schmoozing is by definition dishonest.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AZPaul3, posted 12-19-2022 12:33 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by AZPaul3, posted 12-19-2022 6:35 PM xongsmith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024