4 ms·

The point of these warnings is not to say "oh gosh it happens whatever" or "we need to launch the ICBMs directly at Moscow right now." The point is to gird the

The point of these warnings is not to say "oh gosh it happens whatever" or "we need to launch the ICBMs directly at Moscow right now." The point is to gird the public so that they know the manipulation is happening and can try to compensate for it. There is a lot of denial about this interference happening out there (please do not make me link to it, it's five seconds on Google) and people who are in denial about this stuff absolutely cannot defend themselves. * Obviously this entire reply assumes an ideal world where people are responsible and prominent political movements want to prevent foreign interference (even when the interference arguably benefits them.) I realize we don't live in that world anymore, but how about let's pretend we do for the purposes of this thread.

tcmart14 4y ago
This is essentially what Estonia does I believe. They for years have been making it clear to their citizens that factions outside of its nations borders are directly trying to manipulate their elections. I don't think they discredit any particular sources, it is more of public service announcements for people to do their due diligence.
xienze 4y ago
> There is a lot of denial about this interference happening out there I would argue there’s a lot of creative interpretation of how much “interference” actually happens. Democrats are pretty much starting from the position that, due to demographics, the only way Republicans can gain the upper hand in national elections (or particular state/local elections) is through trickery and the assistance of foreign government meddling. Hence why before and after every election we’re warned repeatedly about foreign interference in our elections. And you would be lying if you said that if the expected red wave materializes that there won’t be large amounts of ink spilled over how Russia pulled it off yet again. Yet if Democrats were to unexpectedly come out on top in a few days, do you think the same people going on about foreign interference would insist that we have to see what role it played in helping certain Democrats win their respective races? Somehow I doubt it. Which is why I think “interference” is a very useful political tool. It’s vague in nature, if we’re being honest it’s impossible to measure its impact, and it serves a very useful purpose — to cast doubt on the victories of political opponents.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  > Democrats are pretty much starting from the position that, due to demographics, the only way Republicans can gain the upper hand in national elections (or particular state/local elections) is through trickery and the assistance of foreign government meddling. WTF. Our voting system is so fundamentally broken and all any party needs to do to get a government majority without a popular majority is to push on the cracks. No foreign interference necessary, though, it helps. The USA is so heavily gerrymandered that the vast majority of congressional races don't even need to hold actual elections, the outcome is 99% certain. There are 10 seats in the up-coming midterms which could be considered competitive out of 435. [0] For the presidential election, the electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to win the presidency with a mere 23% of the popular vote. [0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gop-house-2022/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gop-house-2022/
  - parineum 4y ago
    > For the presidential election, the electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to win the presidency with a mere 23% of the popular vote. _Possible_ does a lot of work for you here. You have to assume all the losing states vote at 0% toward the winning party and all winning states vote at 50%+1 for that to happen. Something that is absurdly unrealistic given that California only voted 65% Biden and 35% Trump in the last election. The EC doesn't favor one party over the other except for the fact that Democrats refuse to move their national politics to the center to win the EC and use words like "populist" to describe the candidates that do. Realistically, the popular vote "problem" you bring up isn't the issue with the EC. The issue is that it allows candidates to ignore the vast majority of the country, causing all candidates to cater to the same minority of the population. There's nothing wrong with the EC except that the states are mostly "winner-take-all", essentially gerrymandering the presidential elections. There are a lot of things I'd like to see done to increase the veracity of our elections (ranked choice voting, open primaries, etc.) but, I think, if we could solve or make progress in the reduction of gerrymandering it would make a sizeable difference in the quality of politics in the country. And, notably, gerrymandering is very much a "both sides" issue, ask Californian politicians if they would favor splitting California EC votes proportionally by vote. That would make California more represented in Presidential elections and would also force candidates to try and win votes in California, moderating national politics. The only downside would be to the Democratic party itself.
mywittyname 4y ago
There's a significant segment of the population who don't care about the manipulation, so long as it helps their "team". There isn't really any way to compensate for it. All that does it encourage voter apathy at best, or at worst, people start to think "both sides do it, so it evens out."
onetimeusename 4y ago
"If only all those other corrupt and stupid people would stop denying foreign election interference that benefits them".

tcmart14 4y ago

This is essentially what Estonia does I believe. They for years have been making it clear to their citizens that factions outside of its nations borders are directly trying to manipulate their elections. I don't think they discredit any particular sources, it is more of public service announcements for people to do their due diligence.

xienze 4y ago

> There is a lot of denial about this interference happening out there I would argue there’s a lot of creative interpretation of how much “interference” actually happens. Democrats are pretty much starting from the position that, due to demographics, the only way Republicans can gain the upper hand in national elections (or particular state/local elections) is through trickery and the assistance of foreign government meddling. Hence why before and after every election we’re warned repeatedly about foreign interference in our elections. And you would be lying if you said that if the expected red wave materializes that there won’t be large amounts of ink spilled over how Russia pulled it off yet again. Yet if Democrats were to unexpectedly come out on top in a few days, do you think the same people going on about foreign interference would insist that we have to see what role it played in helping certain Democrats win their respective races? Somehow I doubt it. Which is why I think “interference” is a very useful political tool. It’s vague in nature, if we’re being honest it’s impossible to measure its impact, and it serves a very useful purpose — to cast doubt on the victories of political opponents.

mywittyname 4y ago
> Democrats are pretty much starting from the position that, due to demographics, the only way Republicans can gain the upper hand in national elections (or particular state/local elections) is through trickery and the assistance of foreign government meddling. WTF. Our voting system is so fundamentally broken and all any party needs to do to get a government majority without a popular majority is to push on the cracks. No foreign interference necessary, though, it helps. The USA is so heavily gerrymandered that the vast majority of congressional races don't even need to hold actual elections, the outcome is 99% certain. There are 10 seats in the up-coming midterms which could be considered competitive out of 435. [0] For the presidential election, the electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to win the presidency with a mere 23% of the popular vote. [0] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gop-house-2022/ https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/gop-house-2022/
- parineum 4y ago
  > For the presidential election, the electoral college makes it possible for a candidate to win the presidency with a mere 23% of the popular vote. _Possible_ does a lot of work for you here. You have to assume all the losing states vote at 0% toward the winning party and all winning states vote at 50%+1 for that to happen. Something that is absurdly unrealistic given that California only voted 65% Biden and 35% Trump in the last election. The EC doesn't favor one party over the other except for the fact that Democrats refuse to move their national politics to the center to win the EC and use words like "populist" to describe the candidates that do. Realistically, the popular vote "problem" you bring up isn't the issue with the EC. The issue is that it allows candidates to ignore the vast majority of the country, causing all candidates to cater to the same minority of the population. There's nothing wrong with the EC except that the states are mostly "winner-take-all", essentially gerrymandering the presidential elections. There are a lot of things I'd like to see done to increase the veracity of our elections (ranked choice voting, open primaries, etc.) but, I think, if we could solve or make progress in the reduction of gerrymandering it would make a sizeable difference in the quality of politics in the country. And, notably, gerrymandering is very much a "both sides" issue, ask Californian politicians if they would favor splitting California EC votes proportionally by vote. That would make California more represented in Presidential elections and would also force candidates to try and win votes in California, moderating national politics. The only downside would be to the Democratic party itself.

mywittyname 4y ago

There's a significant segment of the population who don't care about the manipulation, so long as it helps their "team". There isn't really any way to compensate for it. All that does it encourage voter apathy at best, or at worst, people start to think "both sides do it, so it evens out."

onetimeusename 4y ago

"If only all those other corrupt and stupid people would stop denying foreign election interference that benefits them".