6 ms·
> Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy You already accept the influence
by AsyncAwait 7y ago
> Just so the results of voting can be displayed on TV a bit earlier, we are supposed to accept substantial risks to democracy
You already accept the influence of corporate PACs, which arguably are a much bigger threat to democracy. Not saying you should add another vector, (electronic voting), just that the argument that there's a solid democratic system now is not quite true.
- jonathanstrange 7y ago> You already accept the influence of corporate PACs This is leading astray but just to make this clear for anyone looking up this thread later: I do not accept the influence of corporate PACs at all, and believe (but IANAL) that where I live these would be illegal.
- AsyncAwait 7y ago> I do not accept the influence of corporate PACs at all Good, but I meant "you" as in the broader society concerned about electronic voting, not "you" as the individual.
- merpnderp 7y agoA corporate PAC is simply a group of people joining together to create political speech, with the added legal protection of incorporation. The Citizens United case was in direct response to the FEC approving nearly all corporate speech from liberal sources, while stopping conservative versions. Explicitly in the Michael Moore v Citizens United FEC complaints. Nothing changed for liberals voices in Citizens United, only for conservatives. Which is why this is such a polarizing issue as one side lost a hugely unfair advantage.