An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Of course! Suppression of turnout and votes is a very good fraud tactic in a poorly designed election system. The strength of our system is it's decentralization and distributed counting. The downside is the lack of standard across regions, lack of top down and bottom up cross checking, and an audit trail. The design of the system first and foremost must guarantee *every* eligible person can cast one vote in one geographic place in each election without regulatory barriers. It's not difficult, it's just dangerous for elected officials to change the rules that got them elected, so we get piecemeal reforms that typically are designed to favor incumbents rather than sound, efficient, fair systems.
This is a reason the system is archaic. There are historical reasons for it that still benefit people in power. These people are therefore reluctant to change it and, in fact, seek to expand the asymmetry, without care about undermining confidence in elections and therefore whatever democracy remains in place. The result is predictable.
4 comments:
If the price were right,I bet our very own Matt Franko would have been able to find the "misplaced" 11,780 votes for Trump ;)
Of course! Suppression of turnout and votes is a very good fraud tactic in a poorly designed election system.
The strength of our system is it's decentralization and distributed counting. The downside is the lack of standard across regions, lack of top down and bottom up cross checking, and an audit trail. The design of the system first and foremost must guarantee *every* eligible person can cast one vote in one geographic place in each election without regulatory barriers. It's not difficult, it's just dangerous for elected officials to change the rules that got them elected, so we get piecemeal reforms that typically are designed to favor incumbents rather than sound, efficient, fair systems.
@ Ryan
Agree.
This is a reason the system is archaic. There are historical reasons for it that still benefit people in power. These people are therefore reluctant to change it and, in fact, seek to expand the asymmetry, without care about undermining confidence in elections and therefore whatever democracy remains in place. The result is predictable.
Yet you expect Americans to accept that Joe Biden was elected fair and square.
You have reaped what has been sown. Permanent distrust.
Post a Comment