|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 12 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2026 23:51 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 11 2026 13:43 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2026 04:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
To that end... does anyone actually have a specific suggestion for improving California's election system? Like, can we identify some actual problems and posit solutions / better ways they could run it? Like, they're currently doing X, but they should really consider doing Y instead. What about this 1) Make it impossible for dogs to be able to vote 2) Ballot deadline is... wait for it... ELECTION DAY 3) Require postmarks for posted ballots 4) Count within 2 weeks like a competent state (this prevents the non-existent strawman of "You counted too fast" from occurring which excuses anyone ever fixing anything - if CONSPIRACY THEORISTS will complain regardless, why not take 3 months to count to be super exact? - Notice I said "competent" not "normal" because "normal" is incompetent in most cases) 5) REQUIRE at least video surveillance of a ballot drop box. Take lessons from the CCP's extensive use of CCTV and apply it using tax revenue from the lucrative liberal economy of the largest state by population. 6) Ban paid ballot harvesting 7) Ban unpaid ballot harvesting 8) Require ID to vote 9) Require proof of citizenship to register to vote or use the competent apparatus of bureaucracy to otherwise verify citizenship 10) Send mail-in ballots by request only, NOT ahead of time automatically to passively maintained voter rolls Thank you for the list! We want to make sure that any changes would be addressing the issue (speeding up the process without sacrificing accuracy). I think some of these make a lot of sense, while others don't seem to be particularly relevant. Buddy. Your question is verbatim: To that end... does anyone actually have a specific suggestion for improving California's election system? Like, can we identify some actual problems and posit solutions / better ways they could run it? Like, they're currently doing X, but they should really consider doing Y instead. Your question is not "make it go faster, only speed, fast only, nothing else." If I were to guess what happened in your head is "I will ask them what can be improved, and since everything except the speed is perfect because California, the only possible response is therefore how to make it faster." Even though your own stance is it's not a problem that it just takes a while. Or you just forgot what you asked already. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just to dismiss a few that I don't think address the problem: #6 and #7 are allowed by most states*, so ballot harvesting (allowing someone else to hand in your ballot for you) doesn't seem to be creating this specific issue that California has. *34 states allow other people to return your ballot on your behalf: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_collection_laws_by_state Almost no states have UNCAPPED paid and unpaid ballot harvesting. The fact that you can deliver your invalid grandmother's vote in some states is different than harvesting 1,000 votes from homeless junkies with BS addresses and information or nabbing every Alzheimer's patient at the nursing home. Joke framing. She registered the dog to vote, and cast votes. The dog's registration was never caught by the system and she was in no danger of criminal prosecution. She turned HERSELF in AFTER the affair to expose the flaw. If you knew what a white hacker is you would instantly know the sentiment and the point. But here's what happened to the votes. The California vote was counted. The federal vote was NOT counted. This means California's elections are less secure than the United States. California's answer was to propose cross-checking voter rolls with pet registrations (lmfao). As though a dog has to be real for you to register it to vote. That's pathetic. You can fix that or I can vote for someone who will use the Insurrection Act to bring California elections back under the umbrella of American democracy by having the National Guard run them if California is too incompetent to handle it. The dog loophole is alive and well. Never patched. This is why even if your question did not specifically say the open-ended "improve," you have no standing whatsoever to put a fence around what I think is a problem or pigeonhole the issue. I am not interested in California counting dog votes more quickly. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm also not sure why #10 exists, as long as addresses are kept up-to-date (which can be easily confirmed online or by mail every few years). Sending out optional mail-in ballots encourages more voting, and that's what we want to happen. I think it's wiser to increase the efficiency of counting votes, not reduce the number of votes being cast. They aren't. They can't be. That's why #10 exists. This works in the systems of our reasonable Swiss colleagues for example who have to tell the government within 2 weeks of when they move where their residence is or something. That is never happening in the US. "Fix this thing." "Um I'm not sure if that applies unless that thing were broken in which case you should fix it." On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
#8 and #9 also don't seem to be slowing down the vote-counting process, and we've already had conversations about how important those are (or aren't) when it comes to voter fraud. If you allow dogs to vote and your system of taking longer to count the vote than normal does not make up for it by being robust enough to remove dog registrations and dog votes, you need to do one of 1) start using the extra counting time to remove the dog votes, 2) prevent dogs from voting to begin with, or 3) burn the thing down. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I could see the rest of your list potentially making some sense, especially if we compare how other states do things to how California does things. For example, looking at your #2 (ballot deadline is Election Day), I'm okay with this as long as there are enough days ahead of Election Day for early voting. That leads to the question "how many early voting days is *enough* early voting days?", so I'd defer to what the other 49 states typically allow: https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting In the source above, there's a column called "duration of early voting", which thankfully includes the relevant information: the number of days available for early voting. The numbers are generally between 0 and 30 for each state, although South Dakota seems to be an outlier with 45-46 days of early voting. California is at 29 - basically a full month - and their early voting deadline is already on Election Day. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you mean for #2 is that the ballot needs to be received by Election Day so that it could potentially be counted on Election Day, not merely put in the mailbox by Election Day. (The controversy surrounding California counting ballots a week or two late seems to be that those ballots were appropriately placed in the mail by Election Day, but the mail didn't get delivered until a few days later.*) And that's a legitimate concern, so California ought to find a way to improve the speed of their mail delivery, or maybe shift those 29 days of early voting back a week, so that California voters still have the same amount of time to vote early but the deadline for early voting would become a week before Election Day, so that we can reasonably expect the mailed ballots to arrive by Election Day. What are your thoughts on my underlined idea? California still keeping 29 days of early voting (plenty of other smaller states allow for that many days) but having that period start earlier, so that it also ends earlier than Election Day, giving more time for the mail to be delivered by Election Day? *More about that: "Those ballots are accepted so long as they are dropped at secure locations received by elections offices by 8 p.m. local time on election day or postmarked by that date and returned by the following Tuesday, according to state law. The extended deadline and other administrative requirements mean it can take days or weeks to finalize the tallies of any given election — a process state officials argue is slowed further by the sheer volume of incoming ballots." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5917066-supreme-court-mail-in-ballots/ "Secure" locations do not have to have CCTV surveillance under California law. (e) If feasible, drop boxes shall be monitored by a video security surveillance system, or an internal camera that can capture digital images and/or video. A video security surveillance system can include existing systems on county, city, or private buildings. California does not require postmarks either. (b) A voter's ballot shall be considered a valid ballot, if the:
(8) Vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service, but the voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was executed on or before Election Day and the ballot was received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020. Here's a new fix it idea: 11) Fire everyone who has touched anything along with anyone who has never met a basic standard of competence and ban them from ever working for the state again. But that might fuel the conspiracy fires of Republicans who believe for purely ideological reasons that the California government is incompetent or worse. Did you seriously just write all that, just to skip the most important part? My suggestion of how to actually deal with the biggest issue California is facing when it comes to their elections taking too long (based on your #2)? The underlined part of my post... Please respond to it.
Respond to it? What did you think I was doing when I cited and linked actual California law showing POSTMARKS ARE NOT MANDATORY NOW despite what The Hill told you? What else do you want? A pat on the head for realizing that if you move the receipt deadline up you can also start voting early enough to be able to send it?
I can't ESP what you think is "most important." Do you always start what you think is "most important" with "For example," ? I "responded" to a LOT ("write all that") and you just responded to nothing so physician heal thyself.
|
On June 12 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2026 23:51 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 11 2026 13:43 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2026 04:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
To that end... does anyone actually have a specific suggestion for improving California's election system? Like, can we identify some actual problems and posit solutions / better ways they could run it? Like, they're currently doing X, but they should really consider doing Y instead. What about this 1) Make it impossible for dogs to be able to vote 2) Ballot deadline is... wait for it... ELECTION DAY 3) Require postmarks for posted ballots 4) Count within 2 weeks like a competent state (this prevents the non-existent strawman of "You counted too fast" from occurring which excuses anyone ever fixing anything - if CONSPIRACY THEORISTS will complain regardless, why not take 3 months to count to be super exact? - Notice I said "competent" not "normal" because "normal" is incompetent in most cases) 5) REQUIRE at least video surveillance of a ballot drop box. Take lessons from the CCP's extensive use of CCTV and apply it using tax revenue from the lucrative liberal economy of the largest state by population. 6) Ban paid ballot harvesting 7) Ban unpaid ballot harvesting 8) Require ID to vote 9) Require proof of citizenship to register to vote or use the competent apparatus of bureaucracy to otherwise verify citizenship 10) Send mail-in ballots by request only, NOT ahead of time automatically to passively maintained voter rolls Thank you for the list! We want to make sure that any changes would be addressing the issue (speeding up the process without sacrificing accuracy). I think some of these make a lot of sense, while others don't seem to be particularly relevant. Buddy. Your question is verbatim: To that end... does anyone actually have a specific suggestion for improving California's election system? Like, can we identify some actual problems and posit solutions / better ways they could run it? Like, they're currently doing X, but they should really consider doing Y instead. Your question is not "make it go faster, only speed, fast only, nothing else." If I were to guess what happened in your head is "I will ask them what can be improved, and since everything except the speed is perfect because California, the only possible response is therefore how to make it faster." Even though your own stance is it's not a problem that it just takes a while. Or you just forgot what you asked already. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just to dismiss a few that I don't think address the problem: #6 and #7 are allowed by most states*, so ballot harvesting (allowing someone else to hand in your ballot for you) doesn't seem to be creating this specific issue that California has. *34 states allow other people to return your ballot on your behalf: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_collection_laws_by_state Almost no states have UNCAPPED paid and unpaid ballot harvesting. The fact that you can deliver your invalid grandmother's vote in some states is different than harvesting 1,000 votes from homeless junkies with BS addresses and information or nabbing every Alzheimer's patient at the nursing home. Joke framing. She registered the dog to vote, and cast votes. The dog's registration was never caught by the system and she was in no danger of criminal prosecution. She turned HERSELF in AFTER the affair to expose the flaw. If you knew what a white hacker is you would instantly know the sentiment and the point. But here's what happened to the votes. The California vote was counted. The federal vote was NOT counted. This means California's elections are less secure than the United States. California's answer was to propose cross-checking voter rolls with pet registrations (lmfao). As though a dog has to be real for you to register it to vote. That's pathetic. You can fix that or I can vote for someone who will use the Insurrection Act to bring California elections back under the umbrella of American democracy by having the National Guard run them if California is too incompetent to handle it. The dog loophole is alive and well. Never patched. This is why even if your question did not specifically say the open-ended "improve," you have no standing whatsoever to put a fence around what I think is a problem or pigeonhole the issue. I am not interested in California counting dog votes more quickly. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm also not sure why #10 exists, as long as addresses are kept up-to-date (which can be easily confirmed online or by mail every few years). Sending out optional mail-in ballots encourages more voting, and that's what we want to happen. I think it's wiser to increase the efficiency of counting votes, not reduce the number of votes being cast. They aren't. They can't be. That's why #10 exists. This works in the systems of our reasonable Swiss colleagues for example who have to tell the government within 2 weeks of when they move where their residence is or something. That is never happening in the US. "Fix this thing." "Um I'm not sure if that applies unless that thing were broken in which case you should fix it." On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
#8 and #9 also don't seem to be slowing down the vote-counting process, and we've already had conversations about how important those are (or aren't) when it comes to voter fraud. If you allow dogs to vote and your system of taking longer to count the vote than normal does not make up for it by being robust enough to remove dog registrations and dog votes, you need to do one of 1) start using the extra counting time to remove the dog votes, 2) prevent dogs from voting to begin with, or 3) burn the thing down. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I could see the rest of your list potentially making some sense, especially if we compare how other states do things to how California does things. For example, looking at your #2 (ballot deadline is Election Day), I'm okay with this as long as there are enough days ahead of Election Day for early voting. That leads to the question "how many early voting days is *enough* early voting days?", so I'd defer to what the other 49 states typically allow: https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting In the source above, there's a column called "duration of early voting", which thankfully includes the relevant information: the number of days available for early voting. The numbers are generally between 0 and 30 for each state, although South Dakota seems to be an outlier with 45-46 days of early voting. California is at 29 - basically a full month - and their early voting deadline is already on Election Day. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you mean for #2 is that the ballot needs to be received by Election Day so that it could potentially be counted on Election Day, not merely put in the mailbox by Election Day. (The controversy surrounding California counting ballots a week or two late seems to be that those ballots were appropriately placed in the mail by Election Day, but the mail didn't get delivered until a few days later.*) And that's a legitimate concern, so California ought to find a way to improve the speed of their mail delivery, or maybe shift those 29 days of early voting back a week, so that California voters still have the same amount of time to vote early but the deadline for early voting would become a week before Election Day, so that we can reasonably expect the mailed ballots to arrive by Election Day. What are your thoughts on my underlined idea? California still keeping 29 days of early voting (plenty of other smaller states allow for that many days) but having that period start earlier, so that it also ends earlier than Election Day, giving more time for the mail to be delivered by Election Day? *More about that: "Those ballots are accepted so long as they are dropped at secure locations received by elections offices by 8 p.m. local time on election day or postmarked by that date and returned by the following Tuesday, according to state law. The extended deadline and other administrative requirements mean it can take days or weeks to finalize the tallies of any given election — a process state officials argue is slowed further by the sheer volume of incoming ballots." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5917066-supreme-court-mail-in-ballots/ "Secure" locations do not have to have CCTV surveillance under California law. (e) If feasible, drop boxes shall be monitored by a video security surveillance system, or an internal camera that can capture digital images and/or video. A video security surveillance system can include existing systems on county, city, or private buildings. California does not require postmarks either. (b) A voter's ballot shall be considered a valid ballot, if the:
(8) Vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service, but the voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was executed on or before Election Day and the ballot was received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020. Here's a new fix it idea: 11) Fire everyone who has touched anything along with anyone who has never met a basic standard of competence and ban them from ever working for the state again. But that might fuel the conspiracy fires of Republicans who believe for purely ideological reasons that the California government is incompetent or worse. Did you seriously just write all that, just to skip the most important part? My suggestion of how to actually deal with the biggest issue California is facing when it comes to their elections taking too long (based on your #2)? The underlined part of my post... Please respond to it.
When it comes to this part of your post:
On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
maybe shift those 29 days of early voting back a week, so that California voters still have the same amount of time to vote early but the deadline for early voting would become a week before Election Day, so that we can reasonably expect the mailed ballots to arrive by Election Day
I dont think anyone would have issue with it. I think it is perfect solution (under assumption that votes arriving after election day are ignored).
|
On June 12 2026 00:19 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 11 2026 23:51 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 11 2026 13:43 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2026 04:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
To that end... does anyone actually have a specific suggestion for improving California's election system? Like, can we identify some actual problems and posit solutions / better ways they could run it? Like, they're currently doing X, but they should really consider doing Y instead. What about this 1) Make it impossible for dogs to be able to vote 2) Ballot deadline is... wait for it... ELECTION DAY 3) Require postmarks for posted ballots 4) Count within 2 weeks like a competent state (this prevents the non-existent strawman of "You counted too fast" from occurring which excuses anyone ever fixing anything - if CONSPIRACY THEORISTS will complain regardless, why not take 3 months to count to be super exact? - Notice I said "competent" not "normal" because "normal" is incompetent in most cases) 5) REQUIRE at least video surveillance of a ballot drop box. Take lessons from the CCP's extensive use of CCTV and apply it using tax revenue from the lucrative liberal economy of the largest state by population. 6) Ban paid ballot harvesting 7) Ban unpaid ballot harvesting 8) Require ID to vote 9) Require proof of citizenship to register to vote or use the competent apparatus of bureaucracy to otherwise verify citizenship 10) Send mail-in ballots by request only, NOT ahead of time automatically to passively maintained voter rolls Thank you for the list! We want to make sure that any changes would be addressing the issue (speeding up the process without sacrificing accuracy). I think some of these make a lot of sense, while others don't seem to be particularly relevant. Buddy. Your question is verbatim: To that end... does anyone actually have a specific suggestion for improving California's election system? Like, can we identify some actual problems and posit solutions / better ways they could run it? Like, they're currently doing X, but they should really consider doing Y instead. Your question is not "make it go faster, only speed, fast only, nothing else." If I were to guess what happened in your head is "I will ask them what can be improved, and since everything except the speed is perfect because California, the only possible response is therefore how to make it faster." Even though your own stance is it's not a problem that it just takes a while. Or you just forgot what you asked already. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just to dismiss a few that I don't think address the problem: #6 and #7 are allowed by most states*, so ballot harvesting (allowing someone else to hand in your ballot for you) doesn't seem to be creating this specific issue that California has. *34 states allow other people to return your ballot on your behalf: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_collection_laws_by_state Almost no states have UNCAPPED paid and unpaid ballot harvesting. The fact that you can deliver your invalid grandmother's vote in some states is different than harvesting 1,000 votes from homeless junkies with BS addresses and information or nabbing every Alzheimer's patient at the nursing home. Joke framing. She registered the dog to vote, and cast votes. The dog's registration was never caught by the system and she was in no danger of criminal prosecution. She turned HERSELF in AFTER the affair to expose the flaw. If you knew what a white hacker is you would instantly know the sentiment and the point. But here's what happened to the votes. The California vote was counted. The federal vote was NOT counted. This means California's elections are less secure than the United States. California's answer was to propose cross-checking voter rolls with pet registrations (lmfao). As though a dog has to be real for you to register it to vote. That's pathetic. You can fix that or I can vote for someone who will use the Insurrection Act to bring California elections back under the umbrella of American democracy by having the National Guard run them if California is too incompetent to handle it. The dog loophole is alive and well. Never patched. This is why even if your question did not specifically say the open-ended "improve," you have no standing whatsoever to put a fence around what I think is a problem or pigeonhole the issue. I am not interested in California counting dog votes more quickly. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm also not sure why #10 exists, as long as addresses are kept up-to-date (which can be easily confirmed online or by mail every few years). Sending out optional mail-in ballots encourages more voting, and that's what we want to happen. I think it's wiser to increase the efficiency of counting votes, not reduce the number of votes being cast. They aren't. They can't be. That's why #10 exists. This works in the systems of our reasonable Swiss colleagues for example who have to tell the government within 2 weeks of when they move where their residence is or something. That is never happening in the US. "Fix this thing." "Um I'm not sure if that applies unless that thing were broken in which case you should fix it." On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
#8 and #9 also don't seem to be slowing down the vote-counting process, and we've already had conversations about how important those are (or aren't) when it comes to voter fraud. If you allow dogs to vote and your system of taking longer to count the vote than normal does not make up for it by being robust enough to remove dog registrations and dog votes, you need to do one of 1) start using the extra counting time to remove the dog votes, 2) prevent dogs from voting to begin with, or 3) burn the thing down. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I could see the rest of your list potentially making some sense, especially if we compare how other states do things to how California does things. For example, looking at your #2 (ballot deadline is Election Day), I'm okay with this as long as there are enough days ahead of Election Day for early voting. That leads to the question "how many early voting days is *enough* early voting days?", so I'd defer to what the other 49 states typically allow: https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting In the source above, there's a column called "duration of early voting", which thankfully includes the relevant information: the number of days available for early voting. The numbers are generally between 0 and 30 for each state, although South Dakota seems to be an outlier with 45-46 days of early voting. California is at 29 - basically a full month - and their early voting deadline is already on Election Day. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you mean for #2 is that the ballot needs to be received by Election Day so that it could potentially be counted on Election Day, not merely put in the mailbox by Election Day. (The controversy surrounding California counting ballots a week or two late seems to be that those ballots were appropriately placed in the mail by Election Day, but the mail didn't get delivered until a few days later.*) And that's a legitimate concern, so California ought to find a way to improve the speed of their mail delivery, or maybe shift those 29 days of early voting back a week, so that California voters still have the same amount of time to vote early but the deadline for early voting would become a week before Election Day, so that we can reasonably expect the mailed ballots to arrive by Election Day. What are your thoughts on my underlined idea? California still keeping 29 days of early voting (plenty of other smaller states allow for that many days) but having that period start earlier, so that it also ends earlier than Election Day, giving more time for the mail to be delivered by Election Day? *More about that: "Those ballots are accepted so long as they are dropped at secure locations received by elections offices by 8 p.m. local time on election day or postmarked by that date and returned by the following Tuesday, according to state law. The extended deadline and other administrative requirements mean it can take days or weeks to finalize the tallies of any given election — a process state officials argue is slowed further by the sheer volume of incoming ballots." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5917066-supreme-court-mail-in-ballots/ "Secure" locations do not have to have CCTV surveillance under California law. (e) If feasible, drop boxes shall be monitored by a video security surveillance system, or an internal camera that can capture digital images and/or video. A video security surveillance system can include existing systems on county, city, or private buildings. California does not require postmarks either. (b) A voter's ballot shall be considered a valid ballot, if the:
(8) Vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service, but the voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was executed on or before Election Day and the ballot was received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020. Here's a new fix it idea: 11) Fire everyone who has touched anything along with anyone who has never met a basic standard of competence and ban them from ever working for the state again. But that might fuel the conspiracy fires of Republicans who believe for purely ideological reasons that the California government is incompetent or worse. Did you seriously just write all that, just to skip the most important part? My suggestion of how to actually deal with the biggest issue California is facing when it comes to their elections taking too long (based on your #2)? The underlined part of my post... Please respond to it. Respond to it? What did you think I was doing when I cited and linked actual California law showing POSTMARKS ARE NOT MANDATORY NOW despite what The Hill told you? What else do you want? A pat on the head for realizing that if you move the receipt deadline up you can also start voting early enough to be able to send it? I can't ESP what you think is "most important." Do you always start what you think is "most important" with "For example," ? I "responded" to a LOT ("write all that") and you just responded to nothing so physician heal thyself.
Still not answering it x.x So fucking lame.
On June 12 2026 00:19 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 00:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 11 2026 23:51 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 11 2026 13:43 oBlade wrote:On June 11 2026 04:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
To that end... does anyone actually have a specific suggestion for improving California's election system? Like, can we identify some actual problems and posit solutions / better ways they could run it? Like, they're currently doing X, but they should really consider doing Y instead. What about this 1) Make it impossible for dogs to be able to vote 2) Ballot deadline is... wait for it... ELECTION DAY 3) Require postmarks for posted ballots 4) Count within 2 weeks like a competent state (this prevents the non-existent strawman of "You counted too fast" from occurring which excuses anyone ever fixing anything - if CONSPIRACY THEORISTS will complain regardless, why not take 3 months to count to be super exact? - Notice I said "competent" not "normal" because "normal" is incompetent in most cases) 5) REQUIRE at least video surveillance of a ballot drop box. Take lessons from the CCP's extensive use of CCTV and apply it using tax revenue from the lucrative liberal economy of the largest state by population. 6) Ban paid ballot harvesting 7) Ban unpaid ballot harvesting 8) Require ID to vote 9) Require proof of citizenship to register to vote or use the competent apparatus of bureaucracy to otherwise verify citizenship 10) Send mail-in ballots by request only, NOT ahead of time automatically to passively maintained voter rolls Thank you for the list! We want to make sure that any changes would be addressing the issue (speeding up the process without sacrificing accuracy). I think some of these make a lot of sense, while others don't seem to be particularly relevant. Buddy. Your question is verbatim: To that end... does anyone actually have a specific suggestion for improving California's election system? Like, can we identify some actual problems and posit solutions / better ways they could run it? Like, they're currently doing X, but they should really consider doing Y instead. Your question is not "make it go faster, only speed, fast only, nothing else." If I were to guess what happened in your head is "I will ask them what can be improved, and since everything except the speed is perfect because California, the only possible response is therefore how to make it faster." Even though your own stance is it's not a problem that it just takes a while. Or you just forgot what you asked already. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Just to dismiss a few that I don't think address the problem: #6 and #7 are allowed by most states*, so ballot harvesting (allowing someone else to hand in your ballot for you) doesn't seem to be creating this specific issue that California has. *34 states allow other people to return your ballot on your behalf: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_collection_laws_by_state Almost no states have UNCAPPED paid and unpaid ballot harvesting. The fact that you can deliver your invalid grandmother's vote in some states is different than harvesting 1,000 votes from homeless junkies with BS addresses and information or nabbing every Alzheimer's patient at the nursing home. Joke framing. She registered the dog to vote, and cast votes. The dog's registration was never caught by the system and she was in no danger of criminal prosecution. She turned HERSELF in AFTER the affair to expose the flaw. If you knew what a white hacker is you would instantly know the sentiment and the point. But here's what happened to the votes. The California vote was counted. The federal vote was NOT counted. This means California's elections are less secure than the United States. California's answer was to propose cross-checking voter rolls with pet registrations (lmfao). As though a dog has to be real for you to register it to vote. That's pathetic. You can fix that or I can vote for someone who will use the Insurrection Act to bring California elections back under the umbrella of American democracy by having the National Guard run them if California is too incompetent to handle it. The dog loophole is alive and well. Never patched. This is why even if your question did not specifically say the open-ended "improve," you have no standing whatsoever to put a fence around what I think is a problem or pigeonhole the issue. I am not interested in California counting dog votes more quickly. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm also not sure why #10 exists, as long as addresses are kept up-to-date (which can be easily confirmed online or by mail every few years). Sending out optional mail-in ballots encourages more voting, and that's what we want to happen. I think it's wiser to increase the efficiency of counting votes, not reduce the number of votes being cast. They aren't. They can't be. That's why #10 exists. This works in the systems of our reasonable Swiss colleagues for example who have to tell the government within 2 weeks of when they move where their residence is or something. That is never happening in the US. "Fix this thing." "Um I'm not sure if that applies unless that thing were broken in which case you should fix it." On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
#8 and #9 also don't seem to be slowing down the vote-counting process, and we've already had conversations about how important those are (or aren't) when it comes to voter fraud. If you allow dogs to vote and your system of taking longer to count the vote than normal does not make up for it by being robust enough to remove dog registrations and dog votes, you need to do one of 1) start using the extra counting time to remove the dog votes, 2) prevent dogs from voting to begin with, or 3) burn the thing down. On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:I could see the rest of your list potentially making some sense, especially if we compare how other states do things to how California does things. For example, looking at your #2 (ballot deadline is Election Day), I'm okay with this as long as there are enough days ahead of Election Day for early voting. That leads to the question "how many early voting days is *enough* early voting days?", so I'd defer to what the other 49 states typically allow: https://ballotpedia.org/Early_voting In the source above, there's a column called "duration of early voting", which thankfully includes the relevant information: the number of days available for early voting. The numbers are generally between 0 and 30 for each state, although South Dakota seems to be an outlier with 45-46 days of early voting. California is at 29 - basically a full month - and their early voting deadline is already on Election Day. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you mean for #2 is that the ballot needs to be received by Election Day so that it could potentially be counted on Election Day, not merely put in the mailbox by Election Day. (The controversy surrounding California counting ballots a week or two late seems to be that those ballots were appropriately placed in the mail by Election Day, but the mail didn't get delivered until a few days later.*) And that's a legitimate concern, so California ought to find a way to improve the speed of their mail delivery, or maybe shift those 29 days of early voting back a week, so that California voters still have the same amount of time to vote early but the deadline for early voting would become a week before Election Day, so that we can reasonably expect the mailed ballots to arrive by Election Day. What are your thoughts on my underlined idea? California still keeping 29 days of early voting (plenty of other smaller states allow for that many days) but having that period start earlier, so that it also ends earlier than Election Day, giving more time for the mail to be delivered by Election Day? *More about that: "Those ballots are accepted so long as they are dropped at secure locations received by elections offices by 8 p.m. local time on election day or postmarked by that date and returned by the following Tuesday, according to state law. The extended deadline and other administrative requirements mean it can take days or weeks to finalize the tallies of any given election — a process state officials argue is slowed further by the sheer volume of incoming ballots." https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5917066-supreme-court-mail-in-ballots/ "Secure" locations do not have to have CCTV surveillance under California law. (e) If feasible, drop boxes shall be monitored by a video security surveillance system, or an internal camera that can capture digital images and/or video. A video security surveillance system can include existing systems on county, city, or private buildings. California does not require postmarks either. (b) A voter's ballot shall be considered a valid ballot, if the:
(8) Vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope has no dated postmark, the postmark is illegible, and there is no date stamp for receipt from a bona fide private mail delivery service, but the voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope or the envelope otherwise indicates that the ballot was executed on or before Election Day and the ballot was received by the elections official in accordance with Elections Code section 3020. Here's a new fix it idea: 11) Fire everyone who has touched anything along with anyone who has never met a basic standard of competence and ban them from ever working for the state again. But that might fuel the conspiracy fires of Republicans who believe for purely ideological reasons that the California government is incompetent or worse. Did you seriously just write all that, just to skip the most important part? My suggestion of how to actually deal with the biggest issue California is facing when it comes to their elections taking too long (based on your #2)? The underlined part of my post... Please respond to it. When it comes to this part of your post: Show nested quote +On June 11 2026 21:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
maybe shift those 29 days of early voting back a week, so that California voters still have the same amount of time to vote early but the deadline for early voting would become a week before Election Day, so that we can reasonably expect the mailed ballots to arrive by Election Day I dont think anyone would have issue with it. I think it is perfect solution (under assumption that votes arriving after election day are ignored).
Thank you. I'd like to think so; unfortunately, it seems oBlade has a problem engaging with it though.
Just to reiterate for everyone else:
For anyone concerned about how long it takes California to finish counting the votes after Election Day / the fact that some ballots are being delivered a week or two after Election Day (even if they're legally being sent out on time), what do you think about this adjustment:
California allows 29 days of early voting, which is similar to many other states. We shouldn't reduce that number, or else voters will have fewer days to vote. We probably don't need to increase it either, as that doesn't seem to directly improve the situation. I think the main problem is that the 29-day period ends on Election Day, and it sounds like it'd be beneficial if it ended earlier. So why not move up that 29-day period by a week (or two or three) so that there's an extra week (or two or three) for the mailed ballots to truly be delivered by Election Day in California? Thoughts?
(Note: This will not, in any way, stop conspiracy theorists from spreading their conspiracies, because nothing will... but it'll at least address the apparent concern that California currently takes longer than other states to announce the winners of their elections after Election Day, for however important that ends up truly being.)
|
Any comment on how a vote received after election day with no postmark can be legally counted? Reaction?
Of course the fuck not.
|
On June 12 2026 00:34 oBlade wrote:
Any comment on how a vote received after election day with no postmark can be legally counted? Reaction?
Of course the fuck not.
What are you talking about? Don't postmarks have the date? The date matters! If there's no date / no verification for when the envelope was mailed and the envelope is delivered late, then of course it shouldn't be counted. That's a trivial question for you to ask, because we've already talked about how we need confirmation that the ballot was mailed on time.
My original response to your list was already incredibly long, which is why I tried to speed through your irrelevant points (like how a Republican criminal committed voter fraud with a dog) and focus on what I thought was the best point you had made in your list. Do you agree with my underlined suggestion or not (move up that 29-day period by a week (or two or three) so that there's an extra week (or two or three) for the mailed ballots to truly be delivered by Election Day in California)?
|
On June 11 2026 20:47 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Seeing how I have yet to see an argument in favor of California actually needing three weeks to count the votes, it is hard for me to understand why this argument has lasted multiple pages. They should obviously be more efficient.
I think it was obvious from the start?
On June 09 2026 22:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2026 22:14 Introvert wrote:On June 09 2026 21:46 Godwrath wrote:On June 09 2026 19:49 oBlade wrote:On June 09 2026 17:53 Gorsameth wrote:On June 09 2026 17:29 Simberto wrote:
Exactly. My point was absolutely not that Germany is exceptionally amazing at doing elections. It is that a lot of countries manage to do this regularly and competently, and have been doing this for decades. The US has had elections for centuries, and still somehow cannot manage it without there being an embarrassing amount of weird complications all the time. By design. Why would California design their elections to be this way? Why would the US in general design their elections to be this way ? States run elections, California's absurd system is entirely the fault of California and the excuses they make are pathetic. They don't know how to blame Republicans for it so they can only dissemble.
Not that some aren't still trying to make it about Republicans.
They know the only reason California isn't an exemplar for elections nationally is Democrats prefer that it isn't and they don't know how to reconcile that with their worldview.
|
On June 12 2026 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 00:34 oBlade wrote:
Any comment on how a vote received after election day with no postmark can be legally counted? Reaction?
Of course the fuck not. What are you talking about? Don't postmarks have the date? The date matters! If there's no date / no verification for when the envelope was mailed and the envelope is delivered late, then of course it shouldn't be counted. That's a trivial question for you to ask, because we've already talked about how we need confirmation that the ballot was mailed on time.
The question is about current California law. Not your theorycrafted thing. I thought you would be able to expand your mind and realize California at present has at least one other problem other than the counting being slow. But the cognitive dissonance would get to you.
On June 12 2026 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
My original response to your list was already incredibly long, which is why I tried to speed through your irrelevant points (like how a Republican criminal committed voter fraud with a dog) and focus on what I thought was the best point you had made in your list. Do you agree with my underlined suggestion or not (move up that 29-day period by a week (or two or three) so that there's an extra week (or two or three) for the mailed ballots to truly be delivered by Election Day in California)?
I signaled agreement to that originally by sarcastically asking if you wanted a pat on the back. Let me be more explicit since you really want the credit. You are a smart and moral person for being able to find such an elusive compromise in this daunting situation: Move up the deadline, but keep it the same length by starting early voting on a day that will result in a statutorily equivalent period of early voting. Of course, no problem. For all I cared before, you could start early voting last year.
But the sheer power of your rhetorical persuasion has made me change my mind completely. I now want the window shorter at both ends. Your concern trolling is disgusting. It's that bad. Until you man up and agree with making it impossible for dogs to vote, I want dogs to have the smallest possible window to vote. And now I want to ban mail-in voting completely, not just no-excuse mail in voting, but also absentee voting whatsoever. I want none of it. If we're going to have dogs voting they should have to go to the polls like everyone else. That's it.
|
On June 12 2026 00:55 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 12 2026 00:34 oBlade wrote:
Any comment on how a vote received after election day with no postmark can be legally counted? Reaction?
Of course the fuck not. What are you talking about? Don't postmarks have the date? The date matters! If there's no date / no verification for when the envelope was mailed and the envelope is delivered late, then of course it shouldn't be counted. That's a trivial question for you to ask, because we've already talked about how we need confirmation that the ballot was mailed on time. The question is about current California law. Not your theorycrafted thing. I thought you would be able to expand your mind and realize California at present has at least one other problem other than the counting being slow. But the cognitive dissonance would get to you.
That's... not cognitive dissonance lol. California having multiple problems is not the same thing as a person struggling with two contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Anyways, just to catch you up on the last few pages: It's been about how slow California has been to complete their election results, compared to other states and countries. That's why the conversation has been about California improving speed / finishing earlier / being more efficient without sacrificing accuracy. If you want to make a list of all the things you don't like about California or other issues you have with their voting process, then okay, but I'm going to stay on topic.
Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 00:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
My original response to your list was already incredibly long, which is why I tried to speed through your irrelevant points (like how a Republican criminal committed voter fraud with a dog) and focus on what I thought was the best point you had made in your list. Do you agree with my underlined suggestion or not (move up that 29-day period by a week (or two or three) so that there's an extra week (or two or three) for the mailed ballots to truly be delivered by Election Day in California)? I signaled agreement to that originally by sarcastically asking if you wanted a pat on the back. Let me be more explicit since you really want the credit. You are a smart and moral person for being able to find such an elusive compromise in this daunting situation: Move up the deadline, but keep it the same length by starting early voting on a day that will result in a statutorily equivalent period of early voting. Of course, no problem. For all I cared before, you could start early voting last year. But the sheer power of your rhetorical persuasion has made me change my mind completely. I now want the window shorter at both ends. Your concern trolling is disgusting. It's that bad. Until you man up and agree with making it impossible for dogs to vote, I want dogs to have the smallest possible window to vote. And now I want to ban mail-in voting completely, not just no-excuse mail in voting, but also absentee voting whatsoever. I want none of it. If we're going to have dogs voting they should have to go to the polls like everyone else. That's it.
Actually, you originally responded to my suggestion with just this irrelevant sentence and nothing else: " "Secure" locations do not have to have CCTV surveillance under California law." In a later post, you finally seemed okay with my suggestion, if you asking me if I want a pat on the head counts as you agreeing with me (not sure about that one lol). You could have just said "Sure that sounds fine" instead of acting like a jerk and trying to change the subject. Razyda, for example, had no problem directly responding to my suggestion.
|
On June 12 2026 00:55 oBlade wrote:
I want dogs to have the smallest possible window to vote.
Given social media and AI in few years you may regret this decision  .
|
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time."
|
Your president completely lost the plot with that comment about taking control of iranian oil. I feel ashamed just by reading this and i'm not even American.
|
On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time."
The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source.
|
Northern Ireland26983 Posts
On June 12 2026 02:45 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time." The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source.
That would be nice wouldn’t it?
Systems ain’t perfect, and I think most people understand this, unless particularly charged to the contrary.
If something is considered to basically work, and some error or malfeasance of whatever kind is discovered, the tendency is to well, view that as an outlier, and better still said outlier was caught.
If people either themselves, or probably more commonly by external discourse are primed to think x system is corrupt, any evidence becomes overwhelming proof that said system is corrupt, even if it’s a very limited number.
And if there aren’t tangible examples? Well, that’s just proof that the conspiracy is really damn well orchestrated.
|
On June 12 2026 02:45 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time." The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source. You gonna get the president banned off social media again, or something? Declare a national emergency related to the spread of conspiracy theories and suspend civil rights? I don’t think the tools you have at your disposal on this are that powerful.
|
On June 12 2026 02:55 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 02:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time." The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source. That would be nice wouldn’t it? Systems ain’t perfect, and I think most people understand this, unless particularly charged to the contrary. If something is considered to basically work, and some error or malfeasance of whatever kind is discovered, the tendency is to well, view that as an outlier, and better still said outlier was caught. If people either themselves, or probably more commonly by external discourse are primed to think x system is corrupt, any evidence becomes overwhelming proof that said system is corrupt, even if it’s a very limited number. And if there aren’t tangible examples? Well, that’s just proof that the conspiracy is really damn well orchestrated.
Corruption isn't that uncommon, but the scale matters in which it affects others. If a cop lets you off for smoking weed or whatever else, it's harmless, unless he's selling it to you through an associate. Just as example.
That would imply there‘s a parallel society that exploits positions of authority.
|
On June 12 2026 02:56 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 02:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time." The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source. You gonna get the president banned off social media again, or something? Declare a national emergency related to the spread of conspiracy theories and suspend civil rights? I don’t think the tools you have at your disposal on this are that powerful.
We do as a society need to come up with rules and consequences around lying for personal gain. Much like how they had to create fairness in advertising rules. Otherwise we are pretty doomed if we keep just letting “influencers” and even sitting presidents be bought by foreign interests or just say whatever helps them.
Clearly expecting people to do what’s best for society, even the sitting president, is not working.
|
Northern Ireland26983 Posts
On June 12 2026 03:16 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 02:55 WombaT wrote:On June 12 2026 02:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time." The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source. That would be nice wouldn’t it? Systems ain’t perfect, and I think most people understand this, unless particularly charged to the contrary. If something is considered to basically work, and some error or malfeasance of whatever kind is discovered, the tendency is to well, view that as an outlier, and better still said outlier was caught. If people either themselves, or probably more commonly by external discourse are primed to think x system is corrupt, any evidence becomes overwhelming proof that said system is corrupt, even if it’s a very limited number. And if there aren’t tangible examples? Well, that’s just proof that the conspiracy is really damn well orchestrated. Corruption isn't that uncommon, but the scale matters in which it affects others. If a cop lets you off for smoking weed or whatever else, it's harmless, unless he's selling it to you through an associate. Just as example. That would imply there‘s a parallel society that exploits positions of authority.
Sure, I wouldn’t disagree there. I’m talking more of those of a disposition where x authority is seen as completely corrupt, rather than largely functional with a bit of corruption (which is basically inevitable)
|
Northern Ireland26983 Posts
On June 12 2026 02:56 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 02:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time." The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source. You gonna get the president banned off social media again, or something? Declare a national emergency related to the spread of conspiracy theories and suspend civil rights? I don’t think the tools you have at your disposal on this are that powerful.
Would be a start anyway…
In seriousness, I reckon one does have to get pretty radical. Whether desirous or worth the trade-off, quite another thing.
For me it’s you reform aspects of the current informational sphere, or you don’t and have to put up with the deleterious effects of aspects of it.
|
Canada11535 Posts
On June 12 2026 02:56 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 02:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time." The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source. You gonna get the president banned off social media again, or something? Declare a national emergency related to the spread of conspiracy theories and suspend civil rights? I don’t think the tools you have at your disposal on this are that powerful.
Trump wasn't banned simply for spreading conspiracy theories though. He was banned after he tried to seize power for himself. And yeah, I think if president is trying to forcibly take control of the Republic with his supporters, I think limiting his ability to coordinate and foment insurrection is a reasonable response. Isn't that one of the first targets in a successful coup d'etat? Seize the means of communications? To protect against it, the same would apply.
|
Northern Ireland26983 Posts
On June 12 2026 04:02 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2026 02:56 dyhb wrote:On June 12 2026 02:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 12 2026 02:00 dyhb wrote:
I'm happy that the vulnerability was discovered when it was just one yahoo with her dog bragging about it on social media. Much like it should be no comfort that a hacker was caught and prosecuted after a successful hack of a website, it should be no comfort that she was found through no investigation, and her dog was successfully registered, his/her vote counted in an election, and he/she continued to receive dog-mail in ballots up to the time that owner disclosed the crime on social media.
Let's fight back against conspiracy theorists recruiting others about insecure elections and illegal schemes taking advantage of them, by never noting how easy this crime was to accomplish. My big problem with this thread, or Americans in this thread, is the failure to apply common sense to how people read news stories like that. It's some kind of bubble that reads that and thinks "It's just one woman, so not worth my time." The common sense approach is to tackle the spread of conspiracy theories at the source. You gonna get the president banned off social media again, or something? Declare a national emergency related to the spread of conspiracy theories and suspend civil rights? I don’t think the tools you have at your disposal on this are that powerful. Trump wasn't banned simply for spreading conspiracy theories though. He was banned after he tried to seize power for himself. And yeah, I think if president is trying to forcibly take control of the Republic with his supporters, I think limiting his ability to coordinate and foment insurrection is a reasonable response. Isn't that one of the first targets in a successful coup d'etat? Seize the means of communications? To protect against it, the same would apply.
Ok but have you considered that Californian elections take a while to call?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
