Ooooh, so that's what this whole theatre production has been about.
Thread unfollowed.
I don't think hanging on to every word said in jest helps me improve my sense of humour, if my sense of humour is the problem you have with me.
Ooooh, so that's what this whole theatre production has been about.
Thread unfollowed.
You won't get support if you don't engage in good faith.You're right, we need to get back to the vermins' voter suppression
You could have the regular in-person voting system we have now, and replace postal votes with a well-authenticated electronic system where required. Possibly incorporating some blockchain tech, but I’m neither an expert or an enthusiast.
Could drip-feed the links out at random so there is no obvious heap of forms landing on the doormat one day.
Well, there’s a heap of possible permutations…
Secret ballots based on marked, numbered ballot papers and counterfoils?You won't get support if you don't engage in good faith.
You're not engaging the issue in good faith if you're not interested in solving the problem and defending the integrity of the vote.
You say that younger people could be excluded because their ID costs money.
Then surely providing ID that is free, solves the issue, as long as that ID then can't be used by the state to control people (think digital ids)???
I'd take all of that seriously, if those pushing back against voter id, also believed in the secret ballot. I can't find any that do.
Which suggests to me that people who are pushing back on voter id, aren't doing to protect peoples votes or against disenfranchisment. It's just about making sure the right people get in.
The problem there is that as good as blockchain voting is, if it's used for remote voting, there's no secret ballot, if there's more than one person at the remote location (eg house or care centre).
If the victim hasn't proved to the bad actor that they voted the "right" way, there's consenquences.
You won't get support if you don't engage in good faith.
You're not engaging the issue in good faith if you're not interested in solving the problem and defending the integrity of the vote.
You say that younger people could be excluded because their ID costs money.
Then surely providing ID that is free, solves the issue, as long as that ID then can't be used by the state to control people (think digital ids)???
I'd take all of that seriously, if those pushing back against voter id, also believed in the secret ballot. I can't find any that do.
Which suggests to me that people who are pushing back on voter id, aren't doing to protect peoples votes or against disenfranchisment. It's just about making sure the right people get in.
And just like with the Republican Party it’s happening now because they know they are doomed just by demographics and their complete lack of ideas so this is their best chance.The Tories aren't providing free IDs on demand for voters. That's textbook Yankee-style voter suppression that they've imported.
And just like with the Republican Party it’s happening now because they know they are doomed just by demographics and their complete lack of ideas so this is their best chance.
What about if I ask someone to vote on my behalf (proxy voting is allowed in France) and they vote however they want? And even if they cast the vote I ask them to, it's not secret because they'll know who I voted for.There is a reason why the French force everyone to vote in front of election officials and observers ... so to prove they haven't been coerced.
Except in France where proxy voting (=not secret) is permitted.I am all for money being spent to get a team of election officials and observers to the voter, if the voter can't get polling station.
I am for the secret ballot.
But you're the one assuming voters will coerce each otherTo you, voters are either thick or immoral so if they voted the wrong way, their votes shouldn't count.
Your lack of self-awareness is astonishing...You're a fucking fraud who isn't talking in good faith.
But at the moment, this is you! Interfering with people's natural right to argue over politics and persuade each other to vote a certain way, if they want. People can do what the fuck they want. That's your mantra, right?People can do what the fuck they want.
For too long, middle class woke authoracunts have made themselves too busy with other people's lives to the point of ruin.
Those doing the coercing don't normally have access to those. The published marked register only records whether someone voted or not, not who they voted for.Secret ballots based on marked, numbered ballot papers and counterfoils?
How come the Democrats aren’t doomed by their complete lack of ideas?
Anyone can travel to a polling station if they can travel to hospital in an ambulance.What about if I ask someone to vote on my behalf (proxy voting is allowed in France) and they vote however they want? And even if they cast the vote I ask them to, it's not secret because they'll know who I voted for.
There is no consistency in your argument!
Except in France where proxy voting (=not secret) is permitted.
But you're the one assuming voters will coerce each other
Your lack of self-awareness is astonishing...
But at the moment, this is you! Interfering with people's natural right to argue over politics and persuade each other to vote a certain way, if they want. People can do what the fuck they want. That's your mantra, right?
But you're so blinded by ideology you've lost your way. You're arguing against your own stated views, about human dignity and sovereignty. You're the one making negative assumptions about voters! You're the one wanting to take away people's right to vote from the comfort and convenience of their own home, and restrict the democratic process to only those who can travel to a polling station.
Because all they have to do is not be religious nationalists to the same extreme. Which party is clamping down on reproductive rights again?
I won't be voting. I have ID.View attachment 369973
If the ‘turnout’ next month is noticeably low as a result of this they’ll just say teething problems & people’s own fault and so on but this has got to be one of the least popular moves they could possibly make, nobody believes we have a voter fraud issue.
This is a post that could very well age very badly.
What do you mean?
You can't see it, because you're a fundamentalist. Blinded to nuance or inconsistency, by your own zealotry. I can show it to you, but I can't see it for you.There is nothing inconsistant with my views.
You can't see it, because you're a fundamentalist. Blinded to nuance or inconsistency, by your own zealotry. I can show it to you, but I can't see it for you.
Good likeness.Here is my photo from my ID certificate.
That, and the fact it leaves about the same room for fraud, dishonesty and coercion as postal voting.Wasn’t the inconsistency something to do with proxy voting?
That, and the fact it leaves about the same room for fraud, dishonesty and coercion as postal voting.
But mainly the inconsistency of on the one hand arguing for individual sovereignty and the state to have less control over people (which StakerOne does obsessively) and then arguing that people can't be trusted with postal votes and the state needs more control over the process.
That's StakerOne 's argument though, that people will coerce others within their household to vote a certain way. No data, mind, just the assertion.
The best way to normalise it and restore democracy (Labour will argue by 2028) is a compulsory national ID scheme so everyone has the ID they need to vote. Also to travel to Europe no doubt because of some future treaty tbc