The Prattleground States

November 6, 2012

                A couple of very light pieces for you today. ..these should have run Monday, but you know how I am.

                First, the concept of "Battleground" states is, in essence, that there are a limited set of states which are the keys to victory in a Presidential contest.     Wouldn’t it be neat, I thought, if there were a set of "key" states which also happened to spell out "Battleground"?

                There is no state that starts with the letter "B", so we’re off to a bad start already, but I substituted "P" for "B". . .what are called plosives.    Then, since the Battleground states are something about which the Talking Heads like to prattle. ..well, how about the Prattleground states?

                There is no state that starts with an "E", either, but an "F" is just an "E" with a broken leg, so Florida will work.   There is only one state that starts with an "R", Rhode Island, so we’ll have to make a third substitution there.   OK, so it doesn’t spell "Prattleground" it actually spells "Prattlfgwound", but you get the point.   The Prattleground States are

            P ennsylvania

            R hode Island

            A rizona

            T exas

            T ennessee

            L ouisiana

            F lorida

            G eorgia

            W isconsin

            O hio

            U tah

            N ew Jersey

            D elaware

 

                As it happens, the candidate who has won the Prattleground States has won Presidency in every election since 1888—31 elections in a row.    The Prattleground States matched the overall vote in most of the elections before 1888, too, but let’s not get greedy.

                In 1888, for example, Benjamin Harrison (Republican) ran against Grover Cleveland (Alexander).    Pennsylvania had 30 electoral votes, which went for Harrison, and Rhode Island also went for Harrison, so Harrison is up 34-0 in the Prattleground Poll.    Arizona wasn’t a state in 1888, although Joseph Arpaio was already harassing the interlopers, but anyway, since they weren’t a state nobody cares what they thought.    Texas had only 13 electoral votes then, but they went for Cleveland (34-13), and Tennessee also went for the Democrat.   They had 12 electors, so that makes it 34-25.   

                The South voted Democrat in them days, so Louisiana (8 electors), Florida (4 electors) and Georgia (12 electors) all went for Cleveland, putting Cleveland ahead 49-34.    Harrison rallied in Wisconsin, however (11 electors), making it 49-45, and Ohio gave its 23 votes to Harrison, putting Harrison ahead 68-49.   Utah voters weren’t in a state, unless you consider "polygamy" a state, so they don’t count.    New Jersey, with 9 electors, went for Cleveland, making it 68-58, and Delaware went for Cleveland, but Delaware had only 3 electors, so Harrison won the Prattleground States by a thin 68-61 margin. 

                And he won the election.    Since 1888 it always works; I’ll do a couple more for illustration.   In 1916 the battle was between Woodrow Wilson and Charles Evans Hughes:

 

 

   

1916

   

Wilson

Hughes

Pennsylvania

P

 

38

Rhode Island

R

 

5

Arizona

A

3

 

Texas

T

20

 

Tennessee

T

12

 

Louisiana

L

10

 

Florida

F

6

 

Georgia

G

14

 

Wisconsin

W

 

13

Ohio

O

24

 

Utah

U

4

 

New Jersey

N

 

14

Delaware

D

 

3

       

PRATTLFGWOUND

 

93

73

 

 

 

                Erwin Griswold said about Charles Evans Hughes that "He looked more like God than any man I ever knew."    Hughes was a tall, distinguished-looking man with a deep, resonant voice who spoke in Bob Costas-like polished sentences, seemingly thinking aloud in finished thoughts.   He had a fantastic career; he was on the Supreme Court, resigned from the High Court to run from the Presidency—because he was asked to—lost the race, was re-nominated for the Court, and returned to the Supreme Court as the Chief Justice.  

                Anyway, the 2000 race:

   

2000

   

Bush

Gore

Pennsylvania

P

 

23

Rhode Island

R

 

4

Arizona

A

8

 

Texas

T

32

 

Tennessee

T

11

 

Louisiana

L

9

 

Florida

F

25

 

Georgia

G

13

 

Wisconsin

W

 

11

Ohio

O

21

 

Utah

U

5

 

New Jersey

N

 

15

Delaware

D

 

3

       

PRATTLFGWOUND

 

124

56

 

 

 

                It always works. . .since 1888 it has always worked.  Of course, since I am publishing this in 2012, it probably won’t work in 2012, due to Murphy’s Law or some variation thereof.    Each of these states individually usually goes "with" the nation, as I would suppose almost all states do.   Among the Prattleground States Ohio has the best record of accompanying the nation in these 31 elections, 28-3, followed by New Jersey and Delaware (25-6), Arizona (20-5), Wisconsin (24-7), Utah (22-7), Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Tennessee (23-8), Florida (22-9), Texas (20-11), Louisiana (19-12), and Georgia (16-15).

 

 

The 50 Districts Solution

                Suppose that the United States was divided into 50 Districts. . .

                Which, of course, it is, but set that aside.   I’m not talking about the 50 states right now, but about an alternative universe in which electoral practices could be re-configured so that they make sense.   Suppose that each of the 50 Districts was divided into 50 Regions, each Region into 50 Wards, and each Ward into 50 Precincts.   

                We don’t have to call them Districts, Regions, Wards and Precincts if you don’t want to; we could call them States, Counties, Municipalities and Locales, or we could call them Divisions, Battalions, Regiments and Companies, or we can call them whatever you want to call them.   Let’s use Districts, Regions, Wards and Precincts.

                The problem of low voter participation is, in a sense, very much like the problem of NBA players just going through the motions for significant portions of the season.   The real problem with the NBA is that the games are too long and the season is too long, which grinds all of the random chance out of the sport, which causes the best team to win too often.   Since the best team wins too often, one can look ahead in early November and figure out with about 85% accuracy which teams will make the playoffs, and which teams will be the last four standing.   Since we actually know who will win, more or less, what happens at any particular moment in the schedule doesn’t really make very much difference—and there is simply no way to hide this.    What happens in the third quarter of a Sacramento-Portland game doesn’t actually make any difference, and, because it doesn’t make any difference, the players don’t play with much energy.   You can exhort them about the importance of the game all you want to, but in the end, it doesn’t matter and everybody knows it.

                The problem of low voter participation is a similar one.    People don’t vote because they believe that their vote doesn’t matter, and they believe this because it’s true.   I voted this morning; I know damned well that the odds against my vote changing anything are a billion to one.   Everybody else knows this as well.   You can run all the public service advertisements talking about the importance of voting that you want to, and it doesn’t make any difference because it doesn’t fundamentally change the fact that the individual vote has close to zero impact on the race. 

                A great number of votes in a common pool crushes each vote and diminishes the importance of each vote in the same way that a great many baskets in an NBA season crushes and diminishes the importance of each basket.    Let us call this the NBA problem.

                This is one of two problems that my 50-district solution is meant to address, the other one being the inequality of the vote from state to state.    I’m in Kansas; my vote doesn’t matter because everybody knows that Kansas will vote for Romney regardless of what I do.   If I was in Colorado, now, or Ohio or Florida or Virginia, then the candidates would care much more about my vote because those states are up for grabs.   They are what are called "Battleground" states.   

                If you eliminate the Electoral College, that will simply make the NBA problem worse.   If you eliminated the Electoral College, I guarantee you that voter participation rates would go down further, because everybody would know that it was immensely improbable that their vote would change anything.  

                Let us assume for the sake of argument that it is a bad thing that some voters’ support is more eagerly sought than others, and let us assume for the sake of argument that it is a bad thing that people feel that their vote does not count.   Here’s how you can approach the problem.

                First, divide the nation into 50 Districts, each District into 50 Regions, each Region into 50 Wards, and each Ward into 50 Precincts.   There will be 50 Districts, 2,500 Regions, 125,000 Wards and 6.25 Million Precincts.    If you had 312.5 million people voting—about the population of the United States--then there would be 50 voters in each Precinct. 

                Of course, we have 312.5 million people, not 312.5 legal voters, but that’s a practical problem.   I’m not worried about practical problems, because there is zero chance that might proposal is going to be adopted next week anyway.   What counts here is the idea, not the details.   We’ll worry about the details when my proposal is actually adopted, in 2178.  

 

                Second, after we divide the Nation into 6.25 million precincts, we assign each voter to a Precinct based on geography, but not TOO closely based on geography.    I might be assigned to a Precinct with a man who lives in the next block, 1000 feet from me, while my neighbor who lives 40 feet away from me might be assigned to a different Precinct entirely.   Trying to follow the geography too closely there will just cause problems.  

                Third, we combine 50 precincts to form a Ward, totally ignoring geography.   My Precinct here in Kansas might be combined with Nate Silver’s Precinct in New York City, Steven King’s Precinct in Maine, Michael Lewis’ Precinct in California, Joe Posnanski’s Precinct in North Carolina and Rob Neyer’s Precinct in Oregon.   Each Precinct has one vote in the Ward—or, if it is a tie, one-half of a vote each way (and, in this structure, tens of thousands of Precincts would actually have tied votes.)     

                Then, of course, 50 Wards are added together randomly to make Regions, and 50 Regions to make Districts.

                Now, does your vote count?

                It might.   You’re in a Precinct with 50 voters, not all of whom will vote.   It is entirely reasonable to think that the outcome of your Precinct will be different if you don’t vote than if you do.    If the outcome of your Precinct changes, it is entirely reasonable to think that that might change the outcome for the Ward—and, since you don’t really KNOW who all will be in the Ward with you, you have no reason to believe anything other than that the Ward is a tossup.  

                The question I am trying to pose is, are we really doing anything here?    Is the "meaning" of an individual vote actually any different in this scenario than in the real world, or are we just trying to fool people into voting by offering them the opportunity to "tip" their Precinct, and possibly their Ward?  

                I actually don’t know the answer to that question, with any confidence.   I believe, however, that the answer is that we are in fact doing something real, that in this scenario the individual vote does in fact matter much more. 

                An argument can certainly be made to the contrary.   If you have 300,000,000 voters, the odds of any one vote deciding the election are enormous.    If you put a sharpened pencil on a slate surface, it is possible that the pencil will balance on its point—but the odds against it are millions to one.   A single vote is like the sharpened point of the pencil.   It is enormously unlikely that any one vote represents the balance point of the country—no matter how you count the votes.  

                That argument could be true, but I believe that it isn’t.   Think of it this way.   Given the closeness of American elections, is it likely that the vote of the Districts will be something very close to 25-25?    Of course it is.   Probably I should have used 49 regions so the damned thing doesn’t end up in a tie, but again, that’s a practical issue, and this is a thought exercise, not a practical proposal.

                It is likely that the Districts will be nearly evenly split, therefore it is likely that, had one District voted differently, the outcome of the election would have been different—not one District merely, but any of the 26 Districts which was on the winning side.   We could call these "critical districts", because the outcome of those votes is critical to the outcome of the election.    

                Within those 26 Districts, there will be SOME in which the Regions were almost evenly split.    Some of those 26 Districts will themselves have been decided by 26-24 votes among the Regions.   Therefore, there will be Regions which controlled the outcomes of their Districts, and there will be more critical regions than critical districts.  By the same logic, there will be more critical wards than critical regions, more critical precincts than critical wards, and more critical voters than critical precincts.   Each and every voter who votes the "right" way in a critical precinct is a critical voter; each and every precinct on the winning side of a critical ward is a critical precinct, etc.—therefore, the numbers of critical units increase as you work your way toward the individual voter.

                Thus—at least it seems to me—the likely reality of such a system is that there will in fact be a good many voters across the nation, probably thousands of voters and perhaps millions, who do in fact decide the election.   There could be hundreds of people in the United States, after such an election, who can quite honestly say that their vote decided the election, that had they voted the other way then the outcome of the national election would have been different than it was.   Not sure that is the right answer, but. . .it seems right to me.

 
 

COMMENTS (28 Comments, most recent shown first)

monahan
On the topic of Voter ID and other such concepts, the truth appears to be leaking out...
takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/why-florida-really-changed-its-voting-rules
5:12 PM Nov 26th
 
jollydodger
If the current NBA problem is that the best teams win too often, then isn't your voting system's outcome that the most desirable candidate will win less?


1:12 PM Nov 24th
 
BringBackTriandos
Regarding the attempted rigging of elections (sorry for the late response but I've been away), requiring photo id is an indirect way of discouraging voting by those who don't have a driver's license (poor people. old people). Having insufficient polling stations discourages voters (okay, probably on both sides). And regarding Canada, your big question should be how can Canadians tolerate electing a Prime Minister who receives less than 40 per cent of the vote but gets unfettered control of government (through a majority of members). Yeah, okay, that looks even worse than long lines at the polls.
12:34 AM Nov 17th
 
briangunn
Thanks for the comment, Brian. I'm not sure anyone on this board was advancing the idea that Republicans (or anyone else) have been able to steal elections b/c our voter registration laws are too lax.
11:01 AM Nov 11th
 
Brian
"Smug disingenous rationalizations for vote suppression" - Speaking first for myself, I don't want to suppress anybody's vote. I think believe there are problems with voter fraud and potential greater future problems as well. I think that is especially the case with municipal elections. So I think that the benefits to the legitimacy of the system outweigh what I think are very overblown perceived obstacles to voting that arise from such a law.

There have been some very good points made in opposition to my view and also in support of my view. That's fine, and I will continue to keep an open mind. But don't tell me that my true intention is to keep someone from voting who wants to vote. Because you don't know what you are talking about. And by the way, many people feel the way I do, for the same reasons that I do. So don't accuse them of ulterior motives either.

By the way, if everybody involved in the process is so trustworthy and above-board, how is it then that you are convinced Republicans have been able to steal elections?


1:53 AM Nov 11th
 
KaiserD2
Not to prolong this unduly, but. . .

All states require substantial proof of id when you REGISTER to vote. Therefore the supposed danger we are fighting against is simply impersonation, either of a living registrant or a dead one, at the polls. Impersonation of a living registrant is likely to be detected when the real person shows up, and we have had few or no reports of that. Impersonation of a dead person is possible and I don't think anyone would object to a procedure under which the voter rolls are checked when a death certificate is issued and purged accordingly. There's no need to make things harder for people on election day.
10:04 AM Nov 10th
 
mauimike
"It doesn't matter who votes. What matters is who counts the votes." Josef Stalin. Now, most of the votes are counted by computers. Great machines, its allowing me to do this, but do you really trust the suckers or the people who program them? Make of this what you will. In Colorado, Barry, (that's what he was called when he lived in Hawaii), got less votes than Amendment 64, which legalized marijuana. Barry, 1,238,490. Marijuana 1,291,771. According to the computers. The Dude campaigned heavily in the state. The Dude abides.
12:24 AM Nov 10th
 
briangunn
Love how LesLein forgot to mention the only clear-cut case of voter fraud this cycle, when a Virginia man working for the Republican party threw some voter registration forms into the trash. (Ok, ok, it was only 8 forms, but it's the only case I know of that doesn't seem to be generated by partisanship.)

And Brian, I'd agree - I'm not sure Florida was "stolen" in 2000. However, in 2001 a consortium of 11 US media outlets (from both the Left and Right) determined that, had Florida reviewed and counted all statewide ballots cast in the 2000 election, Al Gore would have won by any standard. To be fair, the Gore campaign itself was not arguing for this standard (at least not until it was too late - they were arguing for a limited recount), so their own poor tactics came back to bite them. But more Floridians did vote for the guy and he was still declared the loser, which is something of a shame.
9:57 PM Nov 9th
 
bobfiore
Well you see, smug disingenuous rationalizations for vote suppression are pointless if the tactic doesn't work. But please feel free to continue to energize the Democratic base and fill them with the determination to vote.

Oh, and congratulations for thwarting the criminal mastermind who registers as Donald Duck. That is without a question the first step in a serious attempt to cast a fraudulent ballot and not an attempt to defraud ACORN out of the fee they paid per registration. Anyone with the IQ of a conservative could see that.
9:28 PM Nov 9th
 
LesLein
I agree with Brian, it isn't onerous to get a valid ID. Any sentient adult can do it.

By the way, Jeb Bush recused himself from the Florida recount. The state government only tabulates results reported from the precincts. Most of the locations where Gore wanted a recount were controlled by Democratic election boards. They picked the voting machines, designed the ballots, and reported the results. For example, the famous butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat and approved by both parties.
9:21 PM Nov 9th
 
LesLein
"All sides agree that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem ..." On election day GOP poll watchers, approved by a judge, were kicked out of some Philadelphia precincts. After a few hours, an appeals court judge ruled that they had to be permitted to return. The districts reported 99% votes for Obama, results normally associated with rigged elections in places like the former USSR. In 2008 some Philadelphia districts reported more votes than they had voters.

We had a recent experience in my congressional district in Alexandria, VA. A staffer resigned from his father's (Jim Moran) campaign because he was caught on video explaining how to forge a utility bill in order to get a voter ID.

Several years ago a Democratic-controlled Congress barred ACORN from receiving government grants in part because of its heavy involvement in voting fraud. ACORN's manual explained how to forge voter applications. Four years ago there was a case in Seattle where an ACORN employee forged applications while smoking marijuana.

There are allegations currently being investigated in Ohio:

"'We had problems with FieldWorks," charges Cuyahoga County Board of Elections Deputy Chairman Pat McDonald.'

"'We found multiple individuals where it looked like it was the same signature from the circulator who was circulating the petitions...we want to make sure there is no potential fraud in any entity of elections administration.'"

Of course, Lyndon Johnson was elected to the Senate in 1948 when 200 people showed up to vote at the last minute. By coincidence they all had the same handwriting and signed up in alphabetical order.


Read more: www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/hitler-appears-on-ohio-voter-registration-form/#ixzz2BmmWWYci



online.wsj.com/article/SB124182750646102435.html

www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/03/hitler-appears-on-ohio-voter-registration-form/
9:15 PM Nov 9th
 
wovenstrap
Voter ID laws are quite clearly an attempt to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters. All sides agree that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem, and if that's the case, then why the hysteria on FOX over voter fraud? Because adding obstacles to voting favors the GOP's more affluent, middle-class (white) electorate who are more comfortable navigating the system. In a perfect world where both sides had equal likelihood to have a driver's license, that's one thing. But that's not the world we live in.
2:55 PM Nov 9th
 
Brian
Actually, voter ID laws are an expression of the horribly radical idea that we should be able to verify the ID of the person voting.

Florida is not an example of a stolen election. Al Franken is an example of a stolen election.


2:01 PM Nov 9th
 
wovenstrap
I have to agree -- at a bare minimum, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted was quite clearly trying to bend the rules as hard as possible to favor the Republicans. On top of that, I figure that if the President mentions in his acceptance speech that the long lines have to be fixed, it's not a chimera. I saw a reputable survey that stated that 20% of all minority voters had wait times of 30 minutes or longer. I fall into the 9% of white voters who had to wait that long (I waited for 45 minutes and missed an appointment because of it).
12:50 PM Nov 9th
 
KaiserD2
Bill, the government of Florida successfully rigged the election in favor of George W. Bush, the governor's brother, in 2000, and got him into the White House. Voter id laws are attempts to rig elections, which seem to have failed this year.

DK
8:08 AM Nov 9th
 
bobfiore
Actually, I believe one party was trying to limit voter participation this time around, not encourage it. Kind of blew up in their faces, as it turned out.

The question I have is, why was Connie Mack rejected as a senator? My main theories are (a) managing in street clothes by now just seems weird, or (b) voters were alienated by his practice of breaking up and selling teams when they had more championships in them . . .
1:13 AM Nov 9th
 
mauimike
I would imagine in Kansas that a majority speak English and I guess that the US is an English speaking country, but here in So Cal I would guess that it is spoken by less than half the people. Spanish being the major language, with perhaps half also speaking English. Then there are the Asian speakers with the Vietnamese, probably being the most, especially in the OC. The Asians tend to be bilingual. Just because a government might decreed it, it don't make it so.
11:50 PM Nov 8th
 
bjames
The long lines to vote only really happen on television. It happens, of course, but that's 99% an issue of television presenting the abnormal as if it was typical.

No state can or does rig the election rules to favor one candidate over another.

And why can't the Canadian government AT LEAST decide what language to speak?
5:43 PM Nov 7th
 
BringBackTriandos
From my perch in Canada, I am baffled that each state sets out its own rules and practices regarding how the election for President is conducted, and tries to rig things so that a certain candidate has an advantage. Why is the conduct of elections, especially national elections, not a federal responsibility? Why is there not an arms-length federal agency to organize and supervise elections (like we have in, um, sorry, Canada)? Why is it so poorly organized (not enough polling stations) that voters have to wait in line for five hours to vote? I'm not claiming we are superior but... America is supposed to be the cradle of democracy. Why can they not organize and administer an election that is neutral, i.e. fair to all?
4:46 PM Nov 7th
 
BringBackTriandos
From my perch in Canada, I am baffled that each state sets out its own rules and practices regarding how the election for President is conducted, and tries to rig things so that a certain candidate has an advantage. Why is the conduct of elections, especially national elections, not a federal responsibility? Why is there not an arms-length federal agency to organize and supervise elections (like we have in, um, sorry, Canada)? Why is it so poorly organized (not enough polling stations) that voters have to wait in line for five hours to vote? I'm not claiming we are superior but... America is supposed to be the cradle of democracy. Why can they not organize and administer an election that is neutral, i.e. fair to all?
4:45 PM Nov 7th
 
Brian
1) 1st of all - it's a great jobs program - think of all the Registrars of Voters

2) When people discuss voter participation, my question is why should I be bothered that someone chooses not to vote? Less voter participation, regardless of party, makes the chance that my vote counts that much higher. In fact, if we cut voter participation in half, I may get to choose the President sometime in the next thousand years. But seriously, if someone really doesn't want to vote, to me that is their rational decision and would seem to naturally lead to a more informed electorate doing the voting. Don't misunderstand, I have no problem with measures that make it easier to vote(early voting, increased absentee voting) as long as they don't promote voter fraud. But if someone doesn't want to vote, I say leave them alone.

3) I don't think state citizenship should be irrelevant. It was, after all, the states who agreed to form the nation. I favor the Maine and I believe Nebraska method of 2 votes for winning the state and 1 for each Congressional District. At least then the candidates would have to go to all the states.
12:32 PM Nov 7th
 
wovenstrap
My logic on the premise that the popular vote winner would always win, goes like this. The popular vote is the ultimate atomizing possible, all votes are equal, region wins nothing. If you take a big pile of sugar and a big pile of flour and sift them for a while, the effect is to spread everything perfectly evenly, and if I'm reading your system correctly, it would have a similar effect, of simply spreading around the electoral pull of the votes almost perfectly evenly. But I'm just guessing; would like to hear more.
11:43 AM Nov 7th
 
yorobert
i suppose my comment/criticism would be that the candidate who receives more votes DOESN"T always win.​
11:21 AM Nov 7th
 
bjames
Responding to the Strapper. ....no; the system would not always match the popular vote. That can be easily demonstrated with a 5-by-5 matrix. One of the criticisms I was anticipating is that the candidate who receives more votes DOESN'T always win, but I suppose I will save my response to that until the criticism actually comes up.
8:07 AM Nov 7th
 
3for3
This is vaguely similar to a recent article I was reading about car sales. The conclusion was that every 2 cents increase costs a big car company 1 sale over a 10 year period. This conclusion was reached by plotting 2 points on a graph, actual sales/price, and a price high enough where sales would be zero. The slope of the line was 2 cents per sale.

Of course we know that .02 wouldn't change any sales in real life. The marginal cost increase is just too small to matter. Same idea for elections; if the election is actually close enough for a recount, in most instances it will be decided by a court (see 2000 for details). So, as Bill has pointed out, an individuals vote is basically meaningless. If we all thought that way....
7:52 AM Nov 7th
 
wovenstrap
I'm not sure about this, but it MIGHT be a reasonable objection to your system that you are merely throwing the election to the gross popular vote (which you said you didn't want to do), only at a remove. In essence, the winner of the popular vote would always win. Don't know enough about math to establish the truth of that, but I would not be surprised if it were true.
2:50 AM Nov 7th
 
wovenstrap
The PRATTLFGWOUND states apparently did predict the winner in 2012, but narrowly. If my math is right, Obama took them 98-90.
2:47 AM Nov 7th
 
mauimike
"If voting changed anything it would be illegal." Emma, but it might have been Mark Twain. No matter how you slice it or dice it, you're the one getting cut and bled. During any presidential election about 25% vote for the winner, about 25% vote for the loser and about 50% don't vote. During the off year elections voter participation drops dramatically. It's part of the circus. I watch. I don't participate. Hence, I don't know and won't tell you how to live your life. I will trade, not use force. I will live and let you live. I will offer you and yours no harm. That's how I live. At 61, its worked pretty well, (or Wills or Wells). I'm no threat to you and yours, which is more than I can say for those of you who vote and seek to control me, direct me and make me do your bidding. I chose not to play.
1:50 AM Nov 7th
 
 
©2019 Be Jolly, Inc. All Rights Reserved.|Web site design and development by Americaneagle.com|Terms & Conditions|Privacy Policy