>> You might as well not participate in any future elections on the basis that they're all "shams,"
I disagree with you about this. These problems are easily fixed if there is a will to do it. For example, the following states, as of a couple months ago, had banned or adequately restricted Zuckerberg contributions:
Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia
You will notice the trend toward conservative states supporting the bans, while liberal states preferring cheating, since this helps keep the rif-raf conservatives the hell out. You live in a state that cannot have a fair election even if it wants to.
So, you have self-selected into that category where cheating is endorsed.
I will agree that all one can do is plug leaks that develop, but if you don't plug the leak once you know about it, this is a place where cheating is endorsed.
You, and others around you, should insist that your voting rights be protected. If you don't you are simply asking for someone to come along and buy elections like Z did.
Solutions can't always be worked out in advance. But geez, when there is an easy solution and you say, "No, I saw that security hole but I don't really care..." then you are effectively signing over your elections to a process over which you have zero control.
THEN, you are signing over your right to participate in future elections because YOU ARE MAKING THEM all shams.
I don't have to call it elections "stolen" -- I do it intentionally to make the point that any kind of cheating is stealing in an election.
In fact, in Georgia there was stealing the 2020 election that was entirely legal. It was still election theft. How's that?
Brad Raffensperger, a Georgia Republican idiot, agreed to settle a lawsuit Democrats had filed over how signature matches are verified. Raffensperger single-handedly signed away the requirement that mail-in ballots be subject to signature verification requirements. A process that under previous [correctly implemented] law rejected around 4.3% of ballots for invalid signatures, was converted into one that resulted in 0.3% of ballots getting rejected.
One could argue that the new way which rejected fewer signatures was right, but the problem is, it wasn't. It was just what Democrats wanted, because more Democrats mail in ballots than do Republicans. There was no evidence one way was more right than the other.
That's the bottom line. With a single signature, they changed the law in Georgia.
That's cheating. Or stealing. But either way, legal. The law was intended by the legislature one way, but this jerk changed that law by signing it away. Under pressure from Stacy Abrams.
This splitting of hairs is nonsense. We all know it isn't right.
|
