3 ms·

If he cared about institutional integrity, he would have asked his wife not to try to illegally overturn the most recent presidential election. Or he would vot

by smt88 5y ago

If he cared about institutional integrity, he would have asked his wife not to try to illegally overturn the most recent presidential election. Or he would vote against partisan gerrymandering, or he would have spoken out about the Jan 6 insurrection in general. Whatever motivation he has, it's not about maintaining traditional institutions. He is the most partisan and unprincipled judge on the Supreme Court. There is no philosophical consistency to his decisions other than "whatever my party wants".

salawat 5y ago
Not everyone sees the protests of the 6th as insurrection, the actions of a small number of idiots aside. This is the central problem of people these days. An unwillingness to even recognize that priors different than their own are worthy of recognition and action. I was talking to a relative about it recently, but in the context of wider adoption of mail-in ballots to increase voting accessibility, balanced against ensuring the ultimate provenance of a vote is actually associated with who it claims to be. Yes, the absentee ballot and mail-in is awesome for not having to go to a poll if you're disabled or what have you. It also means, anyone who gets access to voter lists, envelopes, ballots, and enough stamps get to chuck in whatever they want, with minimal informing of an actual inactive voter that a vote was cast in their stead. This is a glaring hole. There is no answer to it from the side of people who think access is more important, but for the person who deems integrity more important, the access prioritizer completely debases the entire enterprise. As someone who seriously wanted to tackle the electronic voting system issue over the years, it is not an easy problem, and does not lend itself to an easy technical solution. It's a people problem first and foremost. Right now, there just isn't the mutual trust in each other for it not to be seen as anything but potentially malicious. It sucks, but it is what it is, and that's a massive disappointment and reminder of why it seems like we just can't have nice things.

by smt88 5y ago

salawat 5y ago

Not everyone sees the protests of the 6th as insurrection, the actions of a small number of idiots aside. This is the central problem of people these days. An unwillingness to even recognize that priors different than their own are worthy of recognition and action. I was talking to a relative about it recently, but in the context of wider adoption of mail-in ballots to increase voting accessibility, balanced against ensuring the ultimate provenance of a vote is actually associated with who it claims to be. Yes, the absentee ballot and mail-in is awesome for not having to go to a poll if you're disabled or what have you. It also means, anyone who gets access to voter lists, envelopes, ballots, and enough stamps get to chuck in whatever they want, with minimal informing of an actual inactive voter that a vote was cast in their stead. This is a glaring hole. There is no answer to it from the side of people who think access is more important, but for the person who deems integrity more important, the access prioritizer completely debases the entire enterprise. As someone who seriously wanted to tackle the electronic voting system issue over the years, it is not an easy problem, and does not lend itself to an easy technical solution. It's a people problem first and foremost. Right now, there just isn't the mutual trust in each other for it not to be seen as anything but potentially malicious. It sucks, but it is what it is, and that's a massive disappointment and reminder of why it seems like we just can't have nice things.