3 ms·

Improvements to the fairness of elections won't come from those who benefit from the status quo, it'll come from those at the grassroots level. Boosting the ele

Improvements to the fairness of elections won't come from those who benefit from the status quo, it'll come from those at the grassroots level. Boosting the electoral performance of third party candidates builds confidence that grassroots movements can make a significant political impact. As for whether Trump or Clinton would actively block fair elections, that wouldn't surprise me, but I wouldn't put it past either of them (Trump's already made it clear he wants to make it easier to manipulate the press, and Clinton was clearly willing to engage in underhand tactics to get the Democratic nomination). If you're of the same mindset then it makes no sense to vote for either of them, as it appears neither are interested in engaging in fair elections.

int_19h 10y ago
> rump's already made it clear he wants to make it easier to manipulate the press, and Clinton was clearly willing to engage in underhand tactics to get the Democratic nomination I would dare say that these two things aren't equivalent. Clinton "rigging" the primaries didn't involve preventing people from speaking out, or excluding them from voting. It was mostly about the system itself being "pre-rigged" by design, so to speak, and then some coordination with the DNC behind the scenes. All bad juju, but not the kind of thing that causes lasting damage compared to the current state of affairs. Compared to Democrat "machines" of the old, it's practically peanuts - and the country and its political system survived those. OTOH, Trump's talk about expanding the libel laws and otherwise targeting the press, if implemented to its logical completion, would take a lot of time to dig out of. That's not even taking into account his threats to "investigate" his political opponents if elected.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "Clinton "rigging" the primaries didn't involve preventing people from speaking out" Some would argue that there's evidence that she is engaged in that activity: https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4wa5ue/clinton_body_count_5_in_just_6_weeks/ https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4wa5ue/clinton_bo... Whether you want to believe this or not is up to you, but I'd suggest doing a bit of research before dismissing it.

int_19h 10y ago

> rump's already made it clear he wants to make it easier to manipulate the press, and Clinton was clearly willing to engage in underhand tactics to get the Democratic nomination I would dare say that these two things aren't equivalent. Clinton "rigging" the primaries didn't involve preventing people from speaking out, or excluding them from voting. It was mostly about the system itself being "pre-rigged" by design, so to speak, and then some coordination with the DNC behind the scenes. All bad juju, but not the kind of thing that causes lasting damage compared to the current state of affairs. Compared to Democrat "machines" of the old, it's practically peanuts - and the country and its political system survived those. OTOH, Trump's talk about expanding the libel laws and otherwise targeting the press, if implemented to its logical completion, would take a lot of time to dig out of. That's not even taking into account his threats to "investigate" his political opponents if elected.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
> "Clinton "rigging" the primaries didn't involve preventing people from speaking out" Some would argue that there's evidence that she is engaged in that activity: https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4wa5ue/clinton_body_count_5_in_just_6_weeks/ https://m.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4wa5ue/clinton_bo... Whether you want to believe this or not is up to you, but I'd suggest doing a bit of research before dismissing it.