>> We start with you having criticized people for voting by paper rather than by computer
The point is if you cannot manage voting fairly, legally, and securely on paper than you are compelled to do something different. As systems go, this one is not complex.
I'm not criticizing "people" for voting by paper. I'm criticizing systems that are so fucking archaic that it is necessary. Where else do we do that in our lives today. At the DMV? At the drugstore? At the local restaurant?
Why are we in a sea of great technology that can process millions of transactions per second with ease, do this stuff by hand? I don't see that voting machines are any improvement at all.
>> We start with you having criticized people for voting by paper rather than by computer and my having criticized you for a false dichotomy given that computer voting is not an available choice.
When I see a problem, I instantly question why the problem exists. Sorry, it is my MO.
>> Which I watched. It was funny. It's old. I had seen it before. Didn't hear "democratic norms." Didn't hear anything that had anything to do with signatures or computers. Didn't hear anything that had anything to do with voting at all.
What you witnessed was me throwing up my hands and saying, "You cannot just ignore half the voters in the country, who believe with good cause that the election was stolen." And yesterday's ridiculous display was one more example of it. It was absurd.
When you steal an election, you can't just say, "Oh, it never happened". You alienate the people from whom you stole it either forever or until there is some reasonable action taken that prevents it from happening again at the very least.
>> The only question I heard was "what, are we going to not think?"
I'm sorry, but Peterson is the most articulate speaker in the business today. And the smartest. If you didn't take away an understanding of his message, I recogonize my limitations and I know I can't help. |
