But, there is still someone somewhere that distribute the certificats and can link you to your vote so why try to hide something that can leak. It will leak.
We have a major party candidate right now saying his political opponents should face a firing squad and you’re asking “why try to hide something that can leak?”
It’s pretty clear that he is saying that Liz Cheney is a war hawk but might change that stance if she found herself on the other side of said hawking. Your statement is technically correct but like many other interpretations of his statements, forgoes context and intent to make an easy point.
The context is that he has been publicly calling for a televised military tribunal for Cheney (who is not in the military) for quite a while now, but since he’s a senile old man who “weaved” this into an argument against hawkishness, the right wing can play dumb.
Since when do people facing firing squads get issued a rifle of their own? How do you explain this language he is using?
To me it's clear he meant "put her in combat facing a squad of adversaries" (US Army squads are 9 men, USMC are 13), essentially calling her a coward/chickenhawk.
Sure if you omit the times he's called for televised military tribunals for Cheney, an American citizen who has never served in the military. As already addressed below, the fact that he's "weaving" (deliriously free-associating) various arguments together isn't a good defense.
But, should we deceive people like the tech companies are doing right now with privacy?
If someone is scared that his position will be known and still do it only because there is some fakely advertised security in place, you may ruin that person's life againt their will.
I prefer a system where people know how things work, take risks and are responsible. For what do we need a democracy if people are so scared of their family, neighbours and coworkers political views. The way we do democracy should me more mature after all this time. Probably the only place in the world trying to do it right is Switzerland, per example they have frequent local votations accomplished by raising one's hand.
If there is a risk that a husband would beat his wife in this case and that she could not leave him, there is no way that any form of electronic vote would change her life, or even her childrens. People who protect this system will probably rig the votes to keep it or a similar one.
I don't know any big change in the past, anywhere, like a big social progress, a regime change, a revolution or a coup that was enabled by a mass or anonymous voters. I think that if you look into it, you will find that it's always with a large consent or when a group of people takes action openly to push for it.
> If there is a risk that a husband would beat his wife in this case and that she could not leave him, there is no way that any form of electronic vote would change her life, or even her childrens. People who protect this system will probably rig the votes to keep it or a similar one.
What? There are people in America who live under this threat today, and yes voting can actually change important parts of their lives.
> There are people in America who live under this threat today
Women under threat of their spouse beating them to death for voting "incorrectly"? Can you link to some examples of this? Like testimony of women who came forward fearing their spouses, not just in general terms but on this specific issue of voting?
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1852209432878342308