There are a lot of buzz words in that statement. The Democrats’ position is that more voter turnout in general favors Democrats. This seems to be true, but at t

There are a lot of buzz words in that statement. The Democrats’ position is that more voter turnout in general favors Democrats. This seems to be true, but at the same time the ideal amount of voter turnout is 100%. So the question is, is it bad for democrats to spend money on increasing voter turnout in general? For example, half the tech companies were airing ads telling people to vote, or showing notices in their UI. Are more reminders telling people to vote actually a bad thing? The counterquote: > Spokesman Ben LaBolt said the Center for Tech and Civic Life, which received the bulk of the funding, “issued an open call to local election jurisdictions across the country and provided funding to all jurisdictions that applied no matter whether they were historically Republican, Democratic or swing districts.” They even went on to say that more of the funded districts were historically Republican than democrat. Reading the federalist article, it has a very aggressive tone. So it’s hard to take it seriously. Take this sentence, for example: > CTCL demanded the promotion of universal mail-in voting through suspending election laws, extending deadlines that favored mail-in over in-person voting, greatly expanding opportunities for “ballot curing,” expensive bulk mailings, and other lavish “community outreach” programs that were directed by private activists. It’s very clearly implying that giving more people a chance to have their vote counted correctly is a BAD thing. What would be bad was if Zuckerburg’s money was spent by non-partisan non-profits campaigning for the democrats. That would need to be a campaign or PAC donation or something like that. It did not seem like that was the suggestion from those articles, though it was implied. Either way, it’s OBVIOUSLY bad that the rich and powerful can donate huge swaths of money during election cycle. What we really need is: - Better voting standards nationally, to maximize voter turnout across the board by default. This way no one feels like they need to donate millions of dollars to try to get people to submit their ballot in the first place. - Reversing citizen’s united. - Do public campaign financing with no outside donations permitted. - Make sure that polling is funded well-enough. Polling locations shouldn’t need to accept outside money to operate. Similarly, polling needs to be available (closing polling locations in major cities is asinine) I feel like the article tries to pin this on “big tech” specifically, probably because it’s one of the current Republican scapegoats, but the reality is all companies and rich donors already have a huge influence in our elections and politics. Some of the changes I mentioned have been proposed in congress, but it is very difficult to get bipartisan support because no one is keen on supporting a policy that might help them loose an election.