|
|
|
|
|
|
by romwell
685 days ago
|
|
|
Hi from the US. You don't seem to understand that what you see as problems to be solved are seen as features by half of our politicians, who would rather have people not vote at all. These are the vulnerabilities of in-person voting that mail-in voting does not have. >If the idiots here can organize an in-person voting election, anyone can. No, that's not the case. I can't organize elections in Texas because I'm not in charge of organizing elections in Texas. And people in charge of elections in Texas make sure that urban neighborhoods (which are likely to vote for the other party) don't have enough polling places to go to. Oh, and did you know it's common in the US to have churches as polling locations? It's especially great when you're voting on issues like separation of church and the state, abortion, gay marriage, etc. |
|
|
I understand because we had the same problem until 1912 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1enz_Pe%C3%B1a_Law that the problem was solved with secret obligatory in person elections. It was not easy. The 1930 were weird. All the last century was weird. This century is weird too, but at least elections are quite transparent.
> And people in charge of elections in Texas make sure that urban neighborhoods (which are likely to vote for the other party) don't have enough polling places to go to.
That's weird. I'm not sure how we ensure everyone has a good site to vote, because I expect some provinces to use all the dirty tricks that are barely legal. It's a good question. My guess is that elections are obligatory here (nobody really checks that, but there is a threat of a fee or something if you don't vote). So people wait outside the voting locations until they can vote, and if the queue is too long they get angry, and may start a small riot, and get the TV, and the federal government may decide to do something like investigating the local corruption.