The more voter accessibility, the better vote turnout. It's no different than going the opposite way with voter suppression strategy or Jim crow laws. Most states already utilize digital transfer of voting data to state secretary central branches to my knowledge.
Not only this but it (a) actually helps prevent voter fraud while (b) improving turnout by way of digital accessibility.
If we shot down every idea from the peanut gallery because it wasn't simple on its surface we wouldn't have a lot of things.
But what did I notice is that you've now twice dodged the fact that the thing you're most scared about implementing this is already a reality.
So can you explicitly tell me what unavoidable downside it would bring that doesn't already exist in reality?
Ironically, you're accepting fascism is here by preventing us from advancing with a more secure election system that would permit a more responsible, accessible digital voting, are you not?
You're holding us back for fear of what could be.
Even in the wake of what already is a practical reality as I showed.
It's no different than playing by the rules (or lack thereof) of the game like Bannon or Stone play in their strategizing with Trump: Perception is Reality. Ends Justify Means.
Maybe not along this issue, but yes Democrats must realize just how poorly educated and gullible the electorate is and start catering their message accordingly. In spite of moral reservations, fear & anger are powerful motivators.
Yes, Dems couldn't pull it off because the coalition consists of a large number of ethically-bound and higher educated individuals who aren't willing to play dirty as a means to an end... Even when that end is far superior than what the opposition seeks.
There's a sizable number of people intentionally looking the other way because they think they can fight fire with fire, utilizing the same conspiracy theory thinking that the Right routinely gets away to shape public discourse.
I have to say, the thought crossed my mind. But Dems could never pull it off.
What's so scary about that? While the reason seems obvious, I ask because if you know what sort of sophisticated voter identification models the parties have right now, they can easily ascertain your voting history with 90%+ accuracy and predict fairly well who you'll vote for in the future anyway.
I was just thinking of this recently but if Trump utilized his immunity to the fullest extent and we descend into Kristallnacht territory, these voter models would be how they began purging, "the enemy from within."
So given we already are at that point, then maybe the benefits of such a ledger could outweigh the cons.
Not them. For me, Buttigieg was my 3rd preference in the 2020 primaries. I like him. I think he has a grasp of what must be done. Fun fact, he wrote an essay that won a contest with the JFK library back in 2000, essentially praising Bernie Sanders. I think he has his own method by which he achieves a similar outcome, possibly.
That said he isn't who comes to mind to win in 2028 because while I think he's one of the best debaters, I'm not sure if he's the most charismatic. In this popularity contest, charisma matters. He kind of suffers from Al Gore syndrome in that way.
I won't be one of those gatekeepers claiming a gay guy can't win, though. That just amplifies the bigotry more, and we shouldn't get in our own way.
I appreciate the insight. So if I'm understanding you correctly, the AfD while they're picking up fringe support, hasn't really been able to broaden its coalition and lacks the capacity to hijack the government, even from a position of plurality.
I'm curious how the overall public perception of immigration will be for Germans going forward, considering the assimilation of the Syrian refugees Merkel took in, Germany's aging workforce, as well as the existing need to fill jobs like medicine. Are there polling data trends available on this?
lol is this even a question? Yes, I'll take the genitals kick over the possibility of traumatic brain damage.
But that's entertaining this is a valid analogy, which it isn't. Here, let's try this on for size, shall we?
You're in a concentration camp and the President who oversees the Warden is up for reelection.
You watch from outside as the Warden who is brutally terrorizing those people.
There is a binary choice between 2 people for President.
The one has openly instructed the Warden to (1) "finish the job" and undermined every humanitarian aid and even (2) obstructing a "ceasefire" to the guards at every turn, all the while (3) completely and utterly ignoring protesters, if not beating them up.
The other has at least expressed support for (a) Statehood and self-determination of the population, and (b) that the killing must stop, and c) is clearly more amicable to persuasion and outside pressure.
You in all your infinite wisdom, choose to vote for the former in this unfounded perception that there is no difference. As if there isn't a spectrum of genocidal damage and conditions can't get even worse (and they always, always can).
lol. So while you sit from the comfort of your own armchair, patting yourself on the back for your little Pyrrhic victory, you've only exacerbated conditions for years to come both in Gaza and Ukraine alike. You cannot be taken seriously.
Perhaps you you should sit out geopolitics a tad bit longer until you're actually out of grade school and learn a few more lessons in critical-thinking?
I too am holding Tlaib accountable hereon for the genocide in both Gaza and Ukraine for her blatantly ignorant action to not choose Harris over Trump, who will be orders of magnitude worse for both.
I'm told given its architecture, bluesky still forces all private servers to operate through their servers as a choke point, kind of defeating the purpose of true decentralization. Like hosting your own local server but still needing to go through the ISP gateway.
Still, I agree. And supposedly Bluesky claims they'll decouple this eventually.
The more voter accessibility, the better vote turnout. It's no different than going the opposite way with voter suppression strategy or Jim crow laws. Most states already utilize digital transfer of voting data to state secretary central branches to my knowledge.
Not only this but it (a) actually helps prevent voter fraud while (b) improving turnout by way of digital accessibility.
If we shot down every idea from the peanut gallery because it wasn't simple on its surface we wouldn't have a lot of things.
But what did I notice is that you've now twice dodged the fact that the thing you're most scared about implementing this is already a reality.
So can you explicitly tell me what unavoidable downside it would bring that doesn't already exist in reality?