I wish we could all vote remotely! I'd vote a whole bunch of times!
US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
181–190 of 311 posts
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#182I'm surprised that contingency plans weren't already in place and just needed to be activated. I mean, this is the government that has plans for when and where the President and VP can go together, succession, bombers in the air continuously, remote launch authorization, where to move the President in the case of attack... Seems odd that there weren't contingency plans for what Congress operation...
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#183Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to be wowed by this kind of hypocrisy, but lately I've concluded that these things are happening so frequently because the voters have proved to them sufficiently that they will take no heed provided it "hurts the other team." Everything on the news looks ironic now because the political class has realized there's almost no limit to what they can get away with.
Remote voting for senators and remote voting for the presidential election are very very different animals. Remote voting for senators is an easy fix, probably (hopefully) temporary with a very low risk of foreign interference. Remote voting for the general public is fraught with complexity due to voting being the jurisdiction of the states, as well as rife with opportunity for foreign governments to mess with the re…
Remote voting for senate and congress should be the norm. It create less corruption. Just imagine a special interest group needs to travel to 535 offices to get their message heard.
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#185Off topic since this is about senators, but to nip a possible related thread in the bud, an important reason why remote voting for citizens is a bad idea is that it can enable massive scale vote manipulation through schemes to buy or otherwise influence votes. In the privacy of one's home, outside a controlled voting booth, the problem is exacerbated, counterintuitively. A voter at home or in another uncontrolled set…
As someone who lives in a single party state with zero hope of my vote ever mattering in a federal election my vote would definitely be for sale if voting from home was the norm, not that anyone with a brain would buy it.
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#186They're making sure they can vote... but yet no one has worked to make sure all of the American people can vote safely (Read also: mail in ballots for everyone).
A republican senate would never allow this. If everyone votes, Republicans would lose in a landslide. They understand this, which is why gerrymandering is as pervasive as it is (democrats also do it, to a far, far lesser extent.) Trump himself said that if we allowed vote by mail, "you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again." (which is interesting because it's true (not literally, but spiritually) an…
He's saying that alluding to the leftist extremist tampering with votes. It's an easy narrative to sell to his core after the meltdowns post-2016 and the refusal to acknowledge him as president
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to be wowed by this kind of hypocrisy, but lately I've concluded that these things are happening so frequently because the voters have proved to them sufficiently that they will take no heed provided it "hurts the other team." Everything on the news looks ironic now because the political class has realized there's almost no limit to what they can get away with.
>Everything on the news looks ironic I was born and grew up in Scotland. I remember the first time I watched Fox News after moving to the states - for almost fifteen minutes I genuinely thought I was watching some (honestly pretty funny) satire.
I get really frustrated when people only mention Fox News and not CNN/MSNBC in the same sentence. There are people on Fox who are good, I.E. Chris Wallace. I mean he's my only example, but Jon Stewart did a skit with him and the quote that got me was, "how many times have you seen your show on my show?" It was a nod to the fact that Chris Wallace does actual news not opinion pieces. I'd actually say he's better and less opinionated than Don Lemon (CNN).
This is not me defending FOX. It's more of me railing against other forms of news that I also don't like but sometimes get a presumed pass. I see them as the opposite side of the coin.
EDIT: I know this is going to get down-voted. But if you disagree I'd really like to know why. I am someone who listens to others, and am curious why you disagree with this sentiment.
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not exactly a pretense, but rather it's playing to the audience, which is the country and the rest of the world. It's theatrics, not intended to sway the lawmakers themselves, who in general are not persuadable by their colleagues. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, lawmakers are horse trading and calling in favors to get their pet projects passed. This is pretty much how Congress has worked for the past 100 years…
This was true in the 19th century as well.
I am reminded of this historical document [1] (A real source [2]). This private horsetrading likely has and will always be part of any legislative body.
Re: US Senators Introduce Resolution to Allow Remote Voting During Emergencies
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It doesn't work, make it worse" is what I hear here. These are the kind of arguments that move states further towards fascism.
That is a misinterpretation of my comment. To reframe it using your language "It doesn't work now and is actively hurting us during times of emergency, so does removing this requirement make it worse?" No one here has yet to put together a convincing argument on the real world ramifications of debate on the Senate floor. I am open to changing my position on this, but I need to hear a stronger argument than someone pr…
You can try to dismiss the fact that circumventing debate and transparency in government is authoritarian as Godwin and run your apologetics for such authoritarianism while two countries have just slipped into literal fascism and fascist parties literally founded by retired Nazis are pulling 25% in some European countries if you want.