3 ms·

Please rethink your characterization. "Wholly corrupted" would mean 110% voted for the selected politician. "Wholly corrupted" would imply a completely bought

Please rethink your characterization. "Wholly corrupted" would mean 110% voted for the selected politician. "Wholly corrupted" would imply a completely bought and sold election board. This is absolutely not the case, and goes to feed apathy, violence, and adverse voting outcomes (Mussolini, Mugabe, etc.). Note that I am not implying any of the political candidates this year meet this qualification. "Polling stations are engineered to underserve minorities", "voters are wrongfully being purged from the rolls", "districts are drawn for the advantage of a political party" are truthful statements that are more meaningful.

mangeletti 10y ago
> 100% voted for the selected politician Wrong. This is not 1930s Dominican Republic. Politicians are not so stupid these days (at least not in terms of their political cleverness). Corruption is not so obvious when the public has become much more informed. "Wholly corrupted" in election terms can be very correctly defined as "The politician selected is not the one who received the most intended actual votes", even if the vote disparity is a very small number. To extend it even further, you could include the fact that this can happen legally under the electoral college system, but what I am referring to is simply a situation where the lesser desired (by vote count) candidate wins, by means of the combined effects of a number of subtly and carefully corrupted systems.