I wanted to address this. We've had instances of voter intimidation through threats. "If Trump doesn't win, I have to lay off x number of employees" as an example. Yes, it's illegal, but people who commit crimes are often ignorant. I think the fact that ballots are secret is what makes the democratic process work as well as it does in an age where there is so much unrest between the two party system. We desperately need a third party to be recognized at the same level. Biden or Trump? This is the worst election since the last one. They are both absolutely awful.I know it may seem to be a stupid question. But I can't resist anymore.
If someone votes, why keeping his/her vote private is so important?
I personally don't care if the whole world know whom I voted to. I believed in someone and I voted for him. Why should I try to keep it a secret?
Is it that important to keep your vote private?
..and that too.To count, it must be received before the election opens in the morning. It is upon you to ensure thee vote is received in time.
Well I'm pretty sure that that probably has to do with the volume. Which kind of calls into question your earlier comment that you think the front end processing outcome should be about the same.i have never heard about anything not rsolved in a couple of days.
You made a very important point. In the US you are required to register to vote. Registration, in theory, should be clear cut. What has been happening in the US is that the Democrats, by abusing the legal process, have done everything possible to essentially allow virtually anyone to vote without verifying whether the voter is legitimate or not. As some examples, Democrats claim that it is not necessary for the potential voter to verify that they are US citizens or to show identification at the time they register to vote and at the time they actually vote. Democrats also have opposed the clean-up of voter registration roles.There is no need to register for voting. If you are allowed to vote, you get the paper with instructions on where you need to go to vote. (emphasis added)
It is positions like this that make me question the sanity of the Democrats and sometimes myself for opposing them. And of course the ever popular view that the death penalty is 100% wrong regardless of the crime but it is perfectly acceptable, even desirable to allow abortions in the delivery room when the mother is in labor. Not to mention that it is criminal to allow graffiti to remain too long on your building but it doesn't seem to be a crime to put it there in the first place. In cities like San Francisco, it is OK to defecate on the street. In many large cities, it's OK to camp on the sidewalks and public parks but don't you dare smoke in public unless of course you're smoking dope and you're homeless.Democrats also have opposed the clean-up of voter registration roles.
Yes.I think we're fully into the good is bad and bad is good.
Media, repetitive exposure, education.What I can't understand is how they got so many people to drink the Kool-Aid
Very well said. As a current example, the Democrats objection to Amy Coney Barrett nomination to the US Supreme Court is not based on qualifications, but on ideology. Biden unbelievably implied that if he were in a position to make a US Supreme Court nomination that he would make a selection based on political ideology. Democrats apparantly do not want judges appointed to a court based on qualifications, but political ideology. A third world view point of the purpose of the law.Democrats have constantly sought to federalize (or even constitutionalize) their ideology, for fear that localities might dare to express their more unique preferences, thus actually representing people.
See thats where you get the issue. Many places where you vote in the US go for large volume and few people. This means machines are needed with the results we have seen so far. Discussion of that is an entire field unto itself so lets not go there.How could it be the same with drastically different volumes? Higher volume is always where automation has shined.
Another major difference.In the US you are required to register to vote
I guess maybe I'm not understanding.See thats where you get the issue. Many places where you vote in the US go for large volume and few people. This means machines are needed with the results we have seen so far. Discussion of that is an entire field unto itself so lets not go there.
We have gone for decentralised and small places to vote.
Yes, it needs more people but they are all volunteers that get nominated to serve that duty.
If the samee strategy was used in the US, it would probably give the same result.
Although, based on the media coverage, shots would probably be exchangeed during the counting as both sids needed to agree on the numbers.
I agree, that demonstrates the primary skill set (in a debate context) of all anti Trumpers....being witty in twisting words or simply fabricating the appearance of non-existent context, or removing therefrom.Somehow, I don't think so. I implied that he respected my tax money and didn't spend it frivolously, not that he was taking it for himself but as usual, you can twist anything with judicious editing I always watch Rachael Maddow after Trump gives an important speech and I am constantly amazed as I listen to her interpretation of what Trump said (God forbid we talk about his actual words. The people are too stupid to understand his words or take them at face value, they need Rachael to "interpret" what he actually meant). You'd never know that we listened to the same speech.