Trump's reaction to losing
-
@Jolly you put a lot of emphasis on "security" but virtually none on "access".
Faith in the electoral system will also crumble if a large enough swath of the population cannot cast their votes.
The logistical challenges of running an election with 76MM voters (1932), 120MM voters (1968), 182MM voters (1988), and 239MM voters (2020) are not the same. Transit technologies and infrastructure change over time and access to transportation change over time. War, natural disasters, and pandemics will necessitate changes from time to time.
Want to get rid of mail-in voting? Fine, only when easy access to polling stations of sufficient vote processing capacities are available. Commit to guaranteeing that no one has to travel more than X miles to get to a polling station or wait more than Y minutes in line to cast a vote at a polling station, then we can talk about eliminating mail-in voting.
Otherwise, let's say we allow only in-person voting and put only one polling station in each state, logically located where the population is most dense such that it is "shortest distance" for the most people to get there in person, and see how the country/rural folks like it.
-
Access means nothing, if nobody trusts the results.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly you put a lot of emphasis on "security" but virtually none on "access".
Faith in the electoral system will also crumble if a large enough swath of the population cannot cast their votes.
The logistical challenges of running an election with 76MM voters (1932), 120MM voters (1968), 182MM voters (1988), and 239MM voters (2020) are not the same. Transit technologies and infrastructure change over time and access to transportation change over time. War, natural disasters, and pandemics will necessitate changes from time to time.
Want to get rid of mail-in voting? Fine, only when easy access to polling stations of sufficient vote processing capacities are available. Commit to guaranteeing that no one has to travel more than X miles to get to a polling station or wait more than Y minutes in line to cast a vote at a polling station, then we can talk about eliminating mail-in voting.
Otherwise, let's say we allow only in-person voting and put only one polling station in each state, logically located where the population is most dense such that it is "shortest distance" for the most people to get there in person, and see how the country/rural folks like it.
@Axtremus said in Trump's reaction to losing:
@Jolly you put a lot of emphasis on "security" but virtually none on "access".
Faith in the electoral system will also crumble if a large enough swath of the population cannot cast their votes.
The logistical challenges of running an election with 76MM voters (1932), 120MM voters (1968), 182MM voters (1988), and 239MM voters (2020) are not the same. Transit technologies and infrastructure change over time and access to transportation change over time. War, natural disasters, and pandemics will necessitate changes from time to time.
Want to get rid of mail-in voting? Fine, only when easy access to polling stations of sufficient vote processing capacities are available. Commit to guaranteeing that no one has to travel more than X miles to get to a polling station or wait more than Y minutes in line to cast a vote at a polling station, then we can talk about eliminating mail-in voting.
Otherwise, let's say we allow only in-person voting and put only one polling station in each state, logically located where the population is most dense such that it is "shortest distance" for the most people to get there in person, and see how the country/rural folks like it.
Oh for Pete's sake. Have you EVER had an original thought? You just repeat the democrat bull shit propaganda all the time. There is no problem with access.
-
@Jolly This Presidency is ending the same way as it started - accusations of voter fraud.
He had 4 years and all the resources of the federal government to run that one down.
He didn't. Without evidence, he has zero credibility here.
-
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
It's broken. There are millions of people who no longer trust the ballot box.
You cannot put the genie back in the box.
As I said Perhaps Trump’s biggest legacy.
@jon-nyc said in Trump's reaction to losing:
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
It's broken. There are millions of people who no longer trust the ballot box.
You cannot put the genie back in the box.
As I said Perhaps Trump’s biggest legacy.
So convenient. But your hatred really was the first one.
-
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
Access means nothing, if nobody trusts the results.
Democracy means nothing of there is no access.
@Axtremus said in Trump's reaction to losing:
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
Access means nothing, if nobody trusts the results.
Democracy means nothing of there is no access.
It has been my observation, that the folks in the Soviet Union had an awful lot of access. Routine turnout was greater than 90%, wasn't it?
-
@Axtremus said in Trump's reaction to losing:
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
Access means nothing, if nobody trusts the results.
Democracy means nothing of there is no access.
It has been my observation, that the folks in the Soviet Union had an awful lot of access. Routine turnout was greater than 90%, wasn't it?
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
@Axtremus said in Trump's reaction to losing:
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
Access means nothing, if nobody trusts the results.
Democracy means nothing of there is no access.
It has been my observation, that the folks in the Soviet Union had an awful lot of access. Routine turnout was greater than 90%, wasn't it?
Which tells you the importance of access. Even authoritarian regime has to go to great lengths to manufacture the appearance of high turnout to fake legitimacy.
Russia has a different access problem: viable oppositions have no access to the ballot itself — they cannot get their names onto the ballot.
-
In other words, ballot security should take precedence over ballot access.
People who feel cheated out of their votes , eventually rectify that problem. It tends to be a messy affair when they do.
-
In other words, ballot security should take precedence over ballot access.
People who feel cheated out of their votes , eventually rectify that problem. It tends to be a messy affair when they do.
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
In other words, ballot security should take precedence over ballot access.
Not at all.
People who feel cheated out of their votes , eventually rectify that problem. It tends to be a messy affair when they do.
You feel cheated more immediately if you do not even get to cast a vote.
Or, for that matter, when you are prohibited from voting for the person you want to vote for.
-
Wrong.
If the ballot is secure, it means something.
You can have access all day long, but if your ballot gets no further than the dumpster, it means nothing.
-
Wrong.
If the ballot is secure, it means something.
You can have access all day long, but if your ballot gets no further than the dumpster, it means nothing.
@Jolly said in Trump's reaction to losing:
Wrong.
If the ballot is secure, it means something.
You can have access all day long, but if your ballot gets no further than the dumpster, it means nothing.
Wrong. You have to be able to vote first before there is even such a thing as “your vote” to go anywhere.
-
If you know your ballot doesn't count, you don't care about access.
