1. I love how this bilthely leads with, "The electoral process is thoroughly corrupt, here's George Soros pushing money through the system to pursue his agenda,

1. I love how this bilthely leads with, "The electoral process is thoroughly corrupt, here's George Soros pushing money through the system to pursue his agenda," and then jumps aboard the train of said agenda with no further questions asked. Good lord, you want us to participate in THIS? Par for the course for Vox. 2. As the article itself makes clear, prosecutors are actors who will respond to whatever incentives we create for them. The evidence and arguments in THIS VERY ARTICLE undercut the notion that we should focus on the role of the local prosecutor, who is basically just a law enforcement officer, and rather focus on changing the laws to reflect the already-shifted moral substrate. 3. Why doesn't Vox ask us to focus on changing the laws? Our only role in their vision is as fodder - herd voters responding to the signals of a billionaire-funded campaign to harry local prosecutors (to what end? who should we elect instead, and why would they act differently?). This, again, is in line with my (limited) understanding of the Vox perspective - "Trust the experts to figure it out, just nod and sign your name here." We, the vox populi, would obviously never be involved in the actual construction or framing of laws. Just vote.