3 ms·

> The difficulty here is that elections in many places are organized so that it is very inconvenient for less desirable citizens to cast their vote. The parts

> The difficulty here is that elections in many places are organized so that it is very inconvenient for less desirable citizens to cast their vote. The parts about running it efficiently, on Sundays, with voting places everywhere with no queues also solves that. But I know there's no will in the US to have reasonably run elections. As an outside spectator to your elections for many years it's baffling how badly run they are. > Coercion is certainly a potential issue, but if it were a legitimate problem we'd probably have more evidence for that by now. Election systems aren't designed for the median election. They're designed to still be reliable when things are iffy and your democracy is at risk. The fact that you only know of a few cases of that very thing happening 2 years ago in your last big election shouldn't be of much comfort. Particularly with your shaky system being under active attack by external powers.

rootusrootus 6y ago
> As an outside spectator to your elections for many years it's baffling how badly run they are. In my experience they are run very well, like clockwork, and very reliable. The problem (not everyone agrees it is a problem, however) is that the states control the election, so there are 50+ ways it gets accomplished. > Particularly with your shaky system being under active attack by external powers. I personally think the electronic voting machines are a much bigger risk for that kind of attack, compared to vote by mail; but even then, there's no real upside for external powers to take the risk of trying to actually muck with the ballots. In all regards it is easier, more effective, and less risky to just poison people's minds. And I hope you don't believe it's only happening to the United States.