In my opinion the unacceptable, repetitive, fundamentalist-led attacks on the very institution of voting itself would take far more precedence than the social issues you listed, although I know social media leans hard on them.
If you truly feel those are the most pressing issues in your mind/spheres, I would urge you to remember that social media is largely an echo chamber designed to distract from the actual issues, like the aforementioned sustained assault on the very basis of American society.
> In my opinion the unacceptable, repetitive, fundamentalist-led attacks on the very institution of voting itself would take far more precedence than the social issues you listed
How are they attacked? From what I've seen, all the "voter suppression" stories coming from the US are all things we have in place in other modern democracies like in Canada. We have voter ID, we have to make sure we are registered, we can only ask for mail ballots for certain circumstances, voting machines are banned and we have move of the results before midnight.
That doesn’t surprise me, honestly, because the reporting around this is often hard to parse. I suspect that difficulty is on purpose, at least in North Carolina where I am based.
If you would like to understand more about what I’m talking about, which goes far beyond the things like voter ID that you have mentioned, I would suggest beginning with stolen ballots in North Carolina during the 2016 and 2020 elections, as well as gerrymandering policies during the same.
I would then go and examine the statements given by the leadership of each side when such criminal acts are discovered. How do they respond? That can often give you an idea of what a party’s intentions truly are.
Be advised: there is a strong conservative media push to keep the conversation centered around things like voter ID laws, which I agree with you are entirely acceptable. In the same way that they seek to focus on bathroom policies instead of focusing on women dying for their religious beliefs, they hope to muddy the voting issue until it is too late.
I appreciate your interest in understanding what’s going on, and I hope you will add your voice to mine in the future!
If you would like me to do the work of providing you with additional sources addressing any of the other events, please let me know specifically which events you're curious about. I am happy to inform, but do prefer such requests to present in more limited scope, given that I’m doing a favor. Thank you!
Voter suppression in the US appears to take on other forms, reducing the number of polling places in urban centres such that it can take several hours to cast a vote, restricting their hours, making it illegal to provide water for those in the queue, that sort of thing.
Multi-pronged attacks which try to ensure only 'your' people get to participate.
As an Australian resident and a British citizen, it seems outrageous to me - I've never had to take more than about fifteen minutes out of my day to vote in the UK, and in Australia voting is fast, mandatory and always run on a weekend so that most people can get to it. They even usually have a charity barbecue outside the polling place!
Other, indirect attacks on the system include Trump's big lie, the stated intention of the republican candidate for the secretary of state of Arizona to return the state to republican control because he thinks it's what the people really want regardless of the outcome of the actual vote (because clearly the vote is rigged!), the various "alternative electors" that republicans attempted to send to congress during the aftermath of the last presidential election etc etc. The US right is currently mounting an attack on US democracy itself in various ways, to try and work around the system and usurp democratic mandate.
Thanks, it's fascinating and a little scary to watch! The US has a huge influence on the world, particularly on the other western, anglophone democracies, so it feels important. I also have family and friends in various states.
My generation in the UK grew up with America being this shiny, free, wonderful, aspirational land over the sea, the land of Baywatch and Miami Vice and Disneyland and CocaCola all the other things. It really did appear to be the mythical shining light on the hill. I love visiting the US and have spent over a year there now, on and off. It is a varied land of contradictions and of very different values and lifestyles, a land of opulence, but also of left behind little places. But the politics ... it seems to have become pathological, and the population increasingly cynical about politicians, about the media and sources of information, to the extent that most trust seems gone and consensus reality seems to be frequently called into question (I'm not claiming this is unreasonable! Just observing).
These tropes are definitely present in the two countries I've called home, but to a much lesser extent, the poison doesn't seem to have permeated quite so far.
You do see stuff get thrown around on social media like "Make sure to take a pen to the voting booth so that they can't change your vote!" but it's fringe whackos. Even if the politicians themselves are disliked, the mechanics of democracy are usually pretty well trusted. IIRC in the last general election here one of the tiny right-wing parties tried some voter-fraud type rabble-rousing ahead of the poll, but they were largely ignored and pretty quickly contradicted by the Australian Election Commission.
Finchem promotes the big lie and says he will use his prospective position (which AFAICT includes responsibility for administering the election) to "make sure that Arizona is the Red State it REALLY is!" - https://twitter.com/derekwillis/status/1403143345132781569
It's true, that last one is perhaps not as cut-and-dried as it could be, there's some wiggle room in there, but to me the intention looks clear. It's fecking crazy to me that a partisan, elected official has anything to do with running the elections in the first place... but there we are.
I'm sure you can find more stuff like this if you look. Of course I'm sure that there are all sorts of excuses and justifications out there for why this is all totally reasonable, or why the 'other side' are just as bad. It's not clear to me they are though, at least, not when it comes to trying to actually undermine democracy itself.
I’m interested to hear your take on how voting machines are “less secure” than by-hand tallying. I’m unfamiliar with the process, so this goes contrary to what my intuition would tell me goes on
In the same way that email is easier to silently spoof/alter/discard than a handwritten letter. Voting machines without paper backup suffer the same vulnerabilities, with much greater cost, and significantly less money being put toward securing them.
A better question is: “what do digital only voting machines do BETTER than paper ballots?” I’m interested to hear your take!
Don’t really have one, I’m more interested in a study of which protocol is more secure, higher integrity. Gut instinct is that voting machines have a longer/stronger audit chain, are automated & don’t get tired. But of course, auditors get tired and aren’t automated, then again, is voting software “really that hard?”. But then again that audit chain could be stupid and expensive and outweigh the benefit.
In either case, machine or human, I hope that there is some kind of consensus algorithm at play.
I understand your points and concerns but I believe you are operating under the assumption that paper ballots must be counted by human auditors. This is not the case. The issue lies not with automated systems, but in a total reliance upon them, without paper fallback.
The system functions ideally like a scantron system for tests — that is , a standardized bubble form (like a ballot), is read by a machine, which tallies the results automatically.
Crucially, however: if the programming or capability of the tallying machine is ever called into question, a paper ballot allows for referencing a physical, inked record of the voter’s original intent, far more immutably than any *purely* digital record could ever be.
Part of this equation is the fact that current systems are all fractured, with control spread across private industry at the state level, and levels of oversight varying wildly (often from election cycle to election cycle). A paper record is helpful to avoid rogue counties/townships/states etc from simply rewriting history as they see fit. On paper? A significant effort to conceal and alter. Digitally? One script. It just depends on who is in control at any given time.
Also: the trouble with a centralized, verifiable database of voter records is that unsavory entities will inevitably figure out how to look people up themselves, leading also inevitably to voter intimidation and suppression, not to mention violence.
So your points are all correct, but the need for a paper record remains, in my opinion. Testing as you suggest would be nice, but I’m also uncertain what it would further prove, given what to me appears to be an obvious logical extrapolation based on present realities.
Thank you for engaging so rigorously, I really do appreciate you taking the time and hope you feel respected in this conversation. I recognize that this is a contentious arena of issues and I have no wish to batter anyone, although I feel strongly about my position.
EDIT: the point I was trying to make (somewhat glibly) with my prior comment was this: paper ballots work, have worked, and will continue to work for the foreseeable future, unchanged. And it’s critical they function as unimpeachably as possible. So why change the system without a clear, significant benefit for doing so? My understanding is that critical programs like nuclear weaponry don’t generally run on modern, connected platforms — older, offline tech is fully known, and often inherently presents less attack surface in a modern world. The same would seem to be true of individual paper ballots, to me.
Yeah I’m not educated on vote counting machines, but thanks for sharing your thoughts. I think I can imagine plenty of paper ballot systems that are fraud resistant, and so I think generally I’d be happy either way. Something that does seem concerning is the electoral college system, perhaps more specifically how the county votes annd state votes are ratified. It seems like a much smaller population than ballot counters (the people who ratify the election results), and if I understand correctly they’re straight up allowed to reject the will of the people. It shouldn’t matter if it’s a majority in favor of or against your candidate, it’s a majority and that needs to be respected. That all needs amending in my opinion. And frankly, I think popular vote should be the decider and well. I get that it would change campaign strategy, but it would also keep parties more middle of the road.
Please say what about voting has been fundamentally attacked at its core that rises to the level of amending the Constitution? That voters are required to (gasp) verify their identification, once every 4 years, if certain conditions aren't met? That drop boxes for ballots were reduced in number?
Gerrymandering? Just look at some of the district designs in New York.
I might remind you that all the things that are criticized in Republican states for suppressing the vote, exist as rules in certain Democratic states as well.
It's easy, I might point out to you as well, to live in an echo chamber where issues get inflated in perceived importance, only because they hurt your side. Yet those same issues happening where it doesn't hurt the side, somehow fall from being a problem.
That's no way to come to what should be an amendment to our basic document.
> Gerrymandering? Just look at some of the district designs in New York.
Nobody said that this was a republican-led-state problem only. That doesn't stop it from being a major threat to democracy, nor does it a priori mean that the Democrats do it as much or to the extent that Republicans do.
> I might remind you that all the things that are criticized in Republican states for suppressing the vote, exist as rules in certain Democratic states as well.
Do tell. No food or drink supplies allowed while standing outside in line for hours? Where's that in the Democratic states?
> That voters are required to (gasp) verify their identification, once every 4 years, if certain conditions aren't met?
Until we give everyone an ID card, yes that is voter suppression because it prevents many citizens from voting.
> That drop boxes for ballots were reduced in number?
Drop boxes and polling locations. It's hard enough that voting day isn't a paid holiday. If it takes hours and hours or goes outside of the range someone can easily travel, that's a big problem.
When one side repeatedly accuses the process of being rigged, that has the effect of lowering overall belief in the system.
And when every objectively proven, convicted case is perpetrated by that SAME side, yet never condemned by said side, the only possible conclusion is that said side is operating in bad faith.
When one entire half of the political equation is no longer operating in good faith, it has a cascading effect throughout society. Civilization exists because the majority believe in it, no more, no less. All of recorded history would seem to support this theory.
And to put your mind at ease, I assure you I speak from my life experience rather than any internet talking points.
For a simple example, take gerrymandering in my home state of NC. A complex issue, but if one does the work to understand what’s going on, everything I’m saying is clear.
Research is required because the party in power would prefer it NOT be easy to comprehend the big picture — thus my patience with your high-handed-while-largely-misinformed statement of your understanding.
I am curious: how do you explain away the most recent former president demanding votes from Georgia? To continue to treat/request support from such an individual is, to me, an absolute signifier that one does not consider the right to vote to be a fundamental issue, in my opinion.
Not to mention the tomfoolery with ballots going missing, again in NC, due to the actions of an entrenched conservative “deep state” (for lack of a better term).
Nevertheless, I support your right to your opinion! I do wish conservative leadership felt the same way.
I hope this comment leaves you feeling more fully informed of the issues, so you don’t feel the need to bring up bathrooms in the context of rebellion again :).
And consensus failure means that we should codify into the basic law what you believe is the consensus on that topic? Or change the rules to reflect the lack of consensus? How odd.
A change to the Constitution isn't going to save you from people fundamentally disagreeing on things.
