You must log in or register to comment.

Gerald_the_sealion t1_ivk961k wrote

Reported a table worker this morning because a voter was being told who to vote for when the voter clearly said “oh I don’t want to vote for him”.

The table worker followed up with “no you have to”.


BookLuvr7 t1_ivkgpa7 wrote

Pretty sure that's a felony.


Gerald_the_sealion t1_ivko8qu wrote

I called my state’s voting department and reported the person and provided location. Claim was entered, but can only hope this person is handled by the law


therealganjababe t1_ivlg8rg wrote

And who knows if and when they'll respond. Even if they do eventually there could still be hours of her telling people who she wants them to vote for.


halfeclipsed t1_ivm5pcm wrote

I wonder if there would be any consequences for making it known right then and there.


therealganjababe t1_ivm5y66 wrote

Hard to say depending on the politics of the other workers I guess. I'd have had a very hard time keeping my mouth shut. Prob would have daudled a bit, hang around and see if they keep doing it. But an accusation would def be risky.


sportspadawan13 t1_ivm9s4x wrote

You did the right thing but I highly doubt anything will happen, and it's the reason they continue to do this. No consequences were seen for this stuff in 2020 (just Jan 6), so why not intimidate again?


No_Reaction303 t1_ivll6sf wrote

That’s the kind of thing where you need to tip off the media. Otherwise, it might get swept under the rug during the “investigation.”


thewidowgorey t1_ivkejoo wrote

The fuck?!


Gerald_the_sealion t1_ivkggxt wrote

Exactly. There’s nothing illegal about telling someone which candidates they can vote for, providing information, but she straight up said “you have to.” Followed by “the alternate is bad”. Once I heard that, I immediately reported it because the sweet old lady didn’t wanna vote for a certain someone, but was being told she had to. Regardless of affiliation, you cannot tell someone who to vote for.


Isord t1_ivl779d wrote

Kinda seems to me like the workers saying anything about who to vote for should be immensely illegal, regardless of if they say "you have to" or not.


Bokth t1_ivlcr49 wrote

Fill in ONE of these bubbles. Then ONE for this position. You're right a name should never leave their mouth while instructing how to vote


usrevenge t1_ivlur8t wrote

The only time even the word Democrat or Republican are mentioned when I voted was when they ask what you are registered as.


UndertheBigW t1_ivmo2i9 wrote

And that should only be for primary elections to determine which ballot you want to vote on. A general election should just be one ballot and they don't need your party affiliation for you to vote.


MadDjinn t1_ivn76n2 wrote

It’s weird Americans even have that.

Your party affiliation should not be useable by anyone other than the party; and the election commission to prevent you being a member of more than one at a time.

‘Registered’ is just weird.


damattdanman t1_ivllo4y wrote

Did the lady vote how she was told or did you speak up to the poll worker as well? I wouldn't just leave it up to the authorities. That person has the whole rest of the day to fuck with people.


Gerald_the_sealion t1_ivlow55 wrote

Unfortunately I only contacted the state department and provided the voting location and person


Bedbouncer t1_ivlhe8d wrote

The only time I can see this as valid is if the voter tried to vote both straight party ticket AND individual candidates.

At least in my state, you can vote straight party (although I'm not sure that's even an option anymore) or individual candidates, but you can't do both or it makes the ballot void.

Another might be if there's only 1 candidate running for a position, but even then you can still leave that position unvoted, you don't have to vote.


Gerald_the_sealion t1_ivloqf0 wrote

Our location is paper ballots that you insert into a machine. No option for straight ballot, but they had that at my former location where you just press the button.


Bedbouncer t1_ivmgaz8 wrote

Voted tonight. Our location also has paper ballots that you insert into a machine and there is still an option for a straight party ballot.


NemosGhost t1_ivty95f wrote

>At least in my state, you can vote straight party (although I'm not sure that's even an option anymore)

It shouldn't be an option.

In fact, parties should not even appear on the ballot. Only names.


spamattacker t1_ivm2n3l wrote

There is if that person is a poll worker.


Gerald_the_sealion t1_ivm7gti wrote

This was a rep for the GOP who’s only purpose is to sit at a table and provide the list of candidates. Not to provide any direction of who to vote for.


spamattacker t1_ivq2rja wrote

You do understand that I was saying that it's illegal for poll workers to tell people who to vote for, don't you?

Or maybe I was mistaken about the rep's roll. I understood they were an official poll worker.


maggotshero t1_ivlrcer wrote

That's where you just matter of factly go "You do know telling her who to vote for as a poll worker is a felony, right?"


tinacat933 t1_ivkp06x wrote

So what did they do? I’m assuming just voted for who they wanted to?


Gerald_the_sealion t1_ivkqfze wrote

Not sure unfortunately. I reported through the state’s phone line. Im sure if she didn’t want to vote for that person she might’ve stuck with her original plan, but it’s a shame there’s so many cruel people in this world trying to push these narratives


N8CCRG t1_ivl2uth wrote

North Carolina also, or somewhere else?

And good for you on reporting them.


Rage_Like_Nic_Cage t1_ivk3qkl wrote

Kinda wild that democracy is backsliding so quickly and there is hardly any sense of alarm or urgency form those at the top. Other than saying “vote harder” they seem to have no plan on stopping this kind of shit.


C_The_Bear t1_ivk9sm4 wrote

“The pace of oppression outstrips our ability to understand it… It’s easier to hide behind 40 atrocities than a single incident”


retroracer33 t1_ivkmsgu wrote

This is one fo teh reasons the dems are struggling. You can't keep campaigning on the idea that the democracy is in a death spiral (which it is), but then get in office and proceed to do business as usual. It's like the house on fire "This is fine" meme.


Rage_Like_Nic_Cage t1_ivknm04 wrote

Yup. Trump is/was a symptom, not the cause. And while that symptom clearly made everything unequivocally worse, Biden and the dems campaigning on “everything going back to normal” without addressing the root issues is nothing more than a pausing the backsliding, if that.


King_of_the_Nerdth t1_ivl9677 wrote

Democrats haven't any power to stop it though. You'd need a whole lot larger share of congress to be able to make any change happen.


Haunting-Ad788 t1_ivlebce wrote

We could start fucking arresting politicians that participated in January 6th for a start.


_Iro_ t1_ivlrkkp wrote

The primarily conservative Supreme Court wouldn’t comply, which ties back to their point about Democrats not having the necessary political power to push back against extremism


hitlerosexual t1_ivq4j5q wrote

Mobilizing in ways that are outside the establishment might help a bit. the GOP is straight up ready to wage a hot civil war and the Democrats are still putting all their chips on established institutions and legislation to save us. I'm not saying the Democrats should start to fund paramilitary groups like the right has been (although if you're a democrat it'd be wise to consider preparing for things to get ugly because the right wing terrorists groups sure as shit are) but at the very least they should start being significantly more active in union organizing and mobilization, and should work on creating new institutions outside of the government that help to push the agenda. There's a million right wing news outlets and and meanwhile the "left wing" news outlets are either barely left of center, like MSNBC, or obscure and not commonly known, like Mother Jones. Institutions will not save us when the far right controls the narrative, nor will they save us from the American troubles that we are currently in.


VioletBloom2020 t1_ivm2f7n wrote

There’s a guy running for office in NC that was there Jan 6. Ugh


8BitSk8r t1_ivmdjlh wrote

This is these people don’t get. Dems can’t do anything because Manchin and Sinema side with republicans.


King_of_the_Nerdth t1_ivmxsf1 wrote

If we had just one more Dem senator, it wouldn't have mattered. But people endlessly cast blame on those two, so much so that they're going to lose their seats and we'll then have nobody but Republicans to blame. Somehow, we won't blame Republicans right now? For every vote that Sinema and Manchin blocked, 50 Republicans also blocked it.


8BitSk8r t1_ivnuooy wrote

While I completely agree republicans are fully to blame for being the party of “no”, I can’t let those two off the hook. They blocked so much progress. This sountry could have been a much better place if they weren’t corrupt.


King_of_the_Nerdth t1_ivolotp wrote

Sounds like a way of thinking that Republicans are just itching for you to believe. We might even lose Mark Kelly's seat now.


UncannyTarotSpread t1_ivk5b5b wrote

They think their wealth and power will insulate them from the results

And it may! … for a while.


PacmanIncarnate t1_ivkzn1z wrote

Democrats don’t hold enough seats in congress to pass laws without Republicans. Their majority is so narrow that every single democrat in office essentially holds a kill switch for anything to move forward. That’s a lot of kill switches.


Bedbouncer t1_ivlhw4r wrote

So it was never really a majority, since you can't get Democrats to all agree even with "the sun is hot".

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers


DrunkLastKnight t1_ivmggoi wrote

Biggest ones are Manchin and Sinema that are majority of the issue outside of Republicans blocking


nativeindian12 t1_ivlodfw wrote

They tried passing that voting rights act which had a lot of positive changes but Manchin and Sinema fucked it as per usual


Transmatrix t1_ivm2mx9 wrote

True, but imagine if they’d tried as hard as they did when attempting to pass the infrastructure bill. Really feels like this was a “we tried” just so we could say we tried type of effort.


DrunkLastKnight t1_ivmgagd wrote

I would normally say that but with as close as they are in numbers, almost anything the Republicans dont want will get filibustered. But this stuff has been onoing for ages where like nothing gets really done and hasnt at least since Obama


wanderingmanimal t1_ivkyo6i wrote

“We never thought it would happen here” are the words we will be hearing ten years from now…if not days.


Fortunoxious t1_ivlx3ao wrote

The ways that MAGA mirrors the types of movements that lead to genocide are so fucking alarming. If they continue to reflect history, we’ll see mass slaughter. I’m so disappointed in my fellow human, we never learn.


sariisa t1_ivqpz7d wrote

Will be? Have been since Jan 6 at the latest


TaliesinMerlin t1_ivltlf2 wrote

I mean, there have been plenty of alarms from President Biden, the January 6th committee, former President Obama, and others.

The issue is that, within democratic norms, what can they do besides speak on the issue and hope voters respond? They don't have a sufficient number willing to act on voting rights reform in the Senate or roll back the filibuster to allow them to act. They can't act unilaterally lest they violate the very norms they seek to protect.


No_Extension4005 t1_ivmewis wrote

Yeah, I'm not an American so I might get stuff wrong. But it looks like if they wanted to nip it in bud, they'd basically have to purge a good chunk of the Republican party from office make large changes to the electoral system. Like introducing measures to ensure that everyone can and will vote (like making it a public holiday and introducing mandatory voting), getting rid of anti-voter laws states have introduced, and giving extra weight to votes in urban areas.


TraeYoungsOldestSon t1_ivnmqbc wrote

Mandatory voting? Why? Like yeah, people should vote but how do you even enforce making them do it? And extra weight to votes in urban areas???? What? That sounds like straight up nonsense. Stooping to conservative's level by cheating to win is not the answer. Anyone who upvoted you should be embarrassed, and you should be ashamed of yourself.


No_Extension4005 t1_ivntets wrote

Benefits of mandatory voting:

- Improves candidate choices and protects against demagogues: Because now everyone who is politically moderate has to vote, it becomes a lot harder for extremist candidates to get into office and stay in power. So, it doesn't pay to energize your base at the expense of everything and everyone else. Meaning, politics become less polarized. Combine it with ranked voting and smaller parties can gain influence in politics, moving away from a two-party system.

- Remove voting restrictions: When voting is a civic responsibility, governments NEED to make it easier for people to vote. So, measures need to be taken to improve accessibility to polling locations and ensure that external interferences such as weather, transport, and restrictive employers can be worked around easily.

- Stimulate political interest: When voting is a duty, a greater portion of the public will take an interest in politics; leading to a better informed and politically aware population in general.


I should add that I think the electoral college should be scrapped, but the other thing I was trying to express may have come out wrong.

Basically, in the 18th century the Connecticut Compromise was made at a time wherein the United States was significantly more agrarian and had a smaller population. The compromise was that number of senate seats would be weighed equally among states regardless of the size of a state's population. You get two per state. So now you have cases where a state like say, Wyoming with a population of 577,737 people is as represented in the Senate as roughly 38.95 million people living in California. Despite California having about 98.51 times the population. And things like this mean there is currently a rural bias wherein your vote for the senate has a lot more influence than someone from an urban region.

Another thing is that it used to be that the US congress would grow with the population, but then the house size got capped in the early 20th century after a census dispute. Now the population is nearly 75% larger than it was at the time a cap was placed on the number of seats in the House of Representatives, leading to situations where candidates represent very different numbers of people. So, someone can get into the house on 500,000 votes, but it might take another representative a million to get in, depending on where they are.


thatnameagain t1_ivlprte wrote

Biden has given several primetime speeches about this, the 1/6 committee was easily the biggest congressional story of the year, and basically every top democrat has repeatedly said this is urgent. What you're perceiving is the media not taking it urgently enough,


PeteButtiCIAg t1_ivk5glt wrote

Democracy is directly opposed to concentrated power. Why would the people at the top oppose backsliding?

Edit: and more importantly, why are you expecting them to?


mcs_987654321 t1_ivlp1fw wrote

But even then, the incentives in a functional democracy are actually aligned to avoid collapse, if only because you have enough varying interests within the “concentrated power” crowd that refuse to concede their chance to have a turn at the helm.

Of course if you let enough nihilists who genuinely don’t give a shit either way accumulate enough money, and erode the foundational structures that keep the democratic process on track…yeah, things go downhill pretty fast.


PeteButtiCIAg t1_ivlp96l wrote

What are you citing here? Because I'm getting strong "invisible hand" vibes.


mcs_987654321 t1_ivltu5e wrote

Oh, a super mish mash of classical and modern political theory, probably with some unconscious influence of sub-game economics thrown in… but definitely NOT some kind of Adam Smith “it’ll all work out in the end” blue sky thinking.

But yeah: plenty of supporting evidence - even given the natural tendency for wealth and power to accrue/compound - that democracies can and do hold up pretty well, so long as you have: 1) some level of variation and competition within the 0.01% and 2) a somewhat functional rules-based system that doesn’t have obvious forum shopping workarounds.

There’s also probably a 3) in the mix that involves the relationship between political/financial and military power, but that’s outside my wheelhouse and has its own particular dynamics and forces.


PeteButtiCIAg t1_ivlv9zu wrote

Those are some pretty big caveats. The reason I asked is because I was troubled by the cornerstone of "giving a shit". I'm honestly even more troubled now, haha. I've been looking at what we can expect post QE, especially as sovereign debt crises seem to be popping up everywhere. I can see opposed interests continuing (to some extent), but I'm not sure we have models for this level of accumulation. What are the examples?


mcs_987654321 t1_ivm28zb wrote

Historical examples don’t work all that well as proxies, just bc of the amount of confounding factors and unique tensions inherent to a particular time/place…but feel like the British parliamentary system starting from the Carolean era is a pretty solid example.

Crazy concentrations of power and wealth, all kinds of evil fuckery (many having to do with colonial endeavours), but also a fairly stable country that has mostly rolled with the punches, all things considered.

Of course the UK is also currently shitting the bed, so that’s not exactly encouraging…but yeah: “worst option except all the other ones”.

Still think that democracy is remarkably durable, but also agree that we’re experiencing pretty extreme stresses/conditions, and that structurally flawed systems are going to collapse.


clock1058 t1_ivscmvr wrote

>Of course if you let enough nihilists

i dont think u understand what nihilism means


ekaceerf t1_ivktoxi wrote

The past 2 years were just a hiccup on the road to fascism and the end of democracy.


asdaaaaaaaa t1_ivkje83 wrote

> Kinda wild that democracy is backsliding so quickly and there is hardly any sense of alarm or urgency form those at the top.

Almost like they're well connected and have enough money/power to not worry, and plan to use this chaos to profit more. If they cared, this would have been handled already, I know how law enforcement works when they're properly "motivated".


shfiven t1_ivlsbpl wrote

We're basically at the point where we need UN peacekeepers at our elections and democratic leadership is like "oh gee it's bad but whatchagonna do, am I right?"


-RadarRanger- t1_ivm58xr wrote

>Other than saying “vote harder” they seem to have no plan on stopping this kind of shit.

One party is working hard to ensure that if an election doesn't come out the way they want, they can ignore it and certify it their way. And they've got their members believing this is good for them!


Husbandaru t1_ivkx05p wrote

The national guard should be at these places to make sure things like this don’t happen.


mcs_987654321 t1_ivlnmio wrote

So: the backslide is real, but would just caution about the risk of distraction/confirmation bias when it comes to news items like this one.

Bc voter intimidation is DEFINITELY happening in all kinds of shitty new ways (weird door knocking “audits”, ballot box “surveillance”, etc)…but # of reports of intimidation to a hotline is a shitty way of trying to calibrate the extent of this.

Bc election security is obviously a much more prominent issue than in the past, and that alone will make people more likely to make a report. Also: there are a handful of folks in every community who will file a report about anything (along with some who never, ever will).

All that to say: it’s important to use good metrics to get a sense of just how much aggression/intimidation is taking place and in what form, and stuff like # of reported incidents isn’t one of them.


evilpercy t1_ivmk87m wrote

Voteing is the main tool to change things.


thudly t1_ivmtp4t wrote

> those at the top

...don't want democracy. The people want the nation's wealth fairly distributed, and their voting might facilitate that. The pricks on top want authoritarianism, but only if it's somebody friendly to their interests.


Such-Wrongdoer-2198 t1_ivk6cdl wrote

These kinds of incidents aren't so bad. No official intimidation, and nothing that would really interfere with voting. Also if there are reports it shows people are taking it seriously.

The long lines in Atlanta (which I haven't heard of this year) are a bigger concern for me.


CaptainWaffleIron t1_ivkrejf wrote

Outcome wise what is the difference between official and unofficial intimidation?


Such-Wrongdoer-2198 t1_ivkwebd wrote

"The authorities" hold the monopoly of force, so there's not really a "greater authority" to appeal to.


CaptainWaffleIron t1_ivl16bx wrote

So because the government isn't the perpetrator of the intimidation then it wasn't that bad? Functionally speaking what is the difference between government intimidation and an act of intimidation by the general public? You're just one of those wingnuts that thinks the state is the boogey man while ignoring the actual problems.


Such-Wrongdoer-2198 t1_ivl2zpr wrote

Not "it wasn't that bad", "it isn't as bad". I want voter intimidation investigated and prosecuted. But when it's the government there isn't likely to be any investigation (if there is any reporting).


KOBossy55 t1_ivkbyui wrote

The party that can't win when everyone votes is trying to stop people from voting. I'll try to contain my amazement.


inksmudgedhands t1_ivk8q6s wrote

Saw a couple of "Poll watchers" this past Saturday at a poll in High Point. Two men and one woman. Wearing "poll watcher" shirts. Trying to look intimidating and failing terribly. All it did was make people pissed off and more determined to vote.

A year or two ago, people were intimidated by such MAGAs. Now people find them annoying and just want them gone. You can only make people scared for so long before than fear turns to anger. .....Yoda was right.


trelium06 t1_ivkire2 wrote

It’s true!

People assume those who are cowed by violence are cowards or weak, but in reality they’re just hoping the bully goes away without interaction. But when the bullies keep pressing, people will fight back, figuratively of course.


WeagleWobble t1_ivlchnj wrote

I had to bark a little at a "poll watcher" at a Wake County location last week during early voting to return to his seat. Seemed like he was trying to menace the man waiting in front of me, who just so happened to be a minority in a largely Caucasian area.

He lost every ounce of his bravado when just one person spoke up, just shuffled right off as fast as his septuagenerian body could shuffle. A LOT of them will fall back immediately if we start pushing back.


charlesfire t1_ivm90ir wrote

Having to watch the poll watcher... The American democracy is in a very sorry state right now...


WeagleWobble t1_ivmaorg wrote

I kind of wish we'd been able to get UN election monitors for this election, because there's been just entirely too much fuckery and I wish the global community cared as much about our right to vote being suppressed as it does other countries. But we made our mess, and I know it's ultimately up to us to clean it up by all rights.


notorious98 t1_ivkpamh wrote

I just read an article in Politico(?) about how political violence escalated during the 1850s when abolitionists had finally had enough of pro-slavery folks and began fighting back against them. It was, essentially, drawing parallels to today and equating the pro-slavery minority to the current conservative minority in tactics used and the response that we're likely to see moving forward based off of the response that happened back then.


Zen1 OP t1_ivjx8d7 wrote

What state has this NOT happened in yet….


inksmudgedhands t1_ivk7lxh wrote

Haven't heard anything from Hawaii yet...


Alwayssunnyinarizona t1_ivkn2ry wrote

It's still early there yet.


Euripidoze t1_ivkvzje wrote

I think it’s still Monday there. Or maybe Sunday


alextirgard00n t1_ivl1c9f wrote

In all seriousness, I love when daylight savings kicks in. 2hrs back from the west coast, 5 from east. Makes watching sports a lot easier


[deleted] t1_ivkopbm wrote



mjetski123 t1_ivl4iis wrote

At this point, I would think an outfit like that would be no different than wearing a shirt with a political candidate on it. Which is not allowed to be worn at voting places. They only wore that outfit because they couldn't wear a FJB hat and shirt.


therealganjababe t1_ivlgoef wrote

Exactly, but I can't imagine they'd not allow the American Flag, which should be neutral but we all know it's not. Ugh.


ImCreeptastic t1_ivl5b4j wrote

I just voted in PA, and same here. Only two people were outside handing out mock ballots, one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats. Was there all of 5 minutes.


VeteranSergeant t1_ivkuu9u wrote

Yeah, even in the Bluest states you have the "Those parts" in them.


Xyrus2000 t1_ivmkntr wrote

In NH we had people on the ballot that were registered in MULTIPLE parties. Candidates were listed as both republican and democrat, or libertarian and democrat.

You'd think that would be illegal.

There was also a state amendment (introduced by republicans of course) that would allow the legislature to have free reign when it comes to elections. One sentence in the middle of a block of text, a block of text that otherwise appears innocuous.

At the end, they added a note saying that our right to vote wouldn't be affected. And there's the rub. It doesn't matter if you have a right to vote when other people are controlling what you can vote for, or can throw out an election if they don't like the results.

Not that it matters either way. Once the Moore decision happens they won't need a state amendment to pull that kind of crap.


dc551589 t1_ivl0t4p wrote

How to save America:

-Get rid of the Electoral College

-Expand SCOTUS

-Eliminate the filibuster

-Make Election Day a national holiday and/or allow simple mail in voting to be accessible everywhere

-Put an upper age limit on holding office

-Rank choice voting

Lastly, the current Republican Party needs to dissolve. Any remaining moderate (for America) republicans can form a new right wing party. Neo-liberal democrats can be the center party and we NEED a truly progressive party.


flaker111 t1_ivlk2ao wrote

repeal citizens united

remove money from politics completely.


dc551589 t1_ivlncqh wrote

Great additions. I don’t know how I missed reversing Citizens United. Among other things, that’s THE major contributing factor to allowing politicians to be easily bought.


Pete-PDX t1_ivlqun6 wrote

I hear many people say ranked voting will solve problems. Not one has explained to me how that will happen.

Repealing Citizens United is missing from your list and without it -none of the other changes matter.


dc551589 t1_ivlsij9 wrote

Agreed, as with another commenter, that I forgot Citizens United.

As far as how ranked choice voting is an improvement is because it’s a much fairer way to do things. What I mean is that the way ranked choice works is you pick your first choice, then second, third. etc. Think of a primary. Let’s say you really liked Maggie Hassan but if she couldn’t win your next choice would be Bernie, and let’s say your third is Biden. If Hassan doesn’t get enough votes to win there’s an instant runoff and the vote you cast for her would turn into a Bernie vote. Then if Bernie couldn’t do it the same thing would happen and your vote would turn into a Biden vote. Now imagine your first choice is Bernie but you HATE Hassan. You’d put whoever else as your second choice and then if Bernie doesn’t make the cut you won’t have wasted your vote. It would go to your second choice, or the candidate who “ranks” second for you. The current system is how you end up with Biden and a ton of democrats saying they don’t hate him but there not thrilled with a lot of aspects of his presidency.

ETA: ranked choice voting would only really show its benefits with more than a two party system in general elections. Although, it would eliminate people getting mad at people (justifiably) who vote for small third party candidates which, in the current system, is like throwing your vote away.


Pete-PDX t1_ivpj416 wrote

>ETA: ranked choice voting would only really show its benefits with more than a two party system in general elections.

Exactly my thinking and we have a two party two major candidate system so nothing really changes.


nagrom7 t1_ivmkvh9 wrote

Ranked choice allows for minor parties to run without essentially syphoning votes away from their preferred major. It means people will have more choice than D or R.


Pete-PDX t1_ivpfv95 wrote

but how does change anything? It is still going to be an R or D that wins.


nagrom7 t1_ivrcblh wrote

Maybe for the first couple elections, but eventually people will figure out that minor parties are a legitimate option and vote for them. The white house will still likely be stuck bouncing between R and D but seats in congress and even possibly the senate could start to be held by minors, and if enough are then it becomes impossible for either of the majors to get a majority and it forces them to negotiate with said minors to pass legislation.


charlesfire t1_ivma174 wrote

>I hear many people say ranked voting will solve problems. Not one has explained to me how that will happen.

It favorises moderate options, which should help with the polarization issue the US currently have.

Edit : Also, it's easier for smaller parties to get votes with ranked choice voting.


Pete-PDX t1_ivph5sy wrote

So what that that smaller parties get votes - that does not change they still will not be a elected.

Your other explanation is why I asked the question in the first place. Your reply was - "it should" but no details how. Ranked choice - vote 1 slot for polarizing candidate - don't vote for any one else. my biggest issues with Ranked choice there is no standard in how would. Without a standard there is no way you can determine if it will change anything or nothing at all.


charlesfire t1_ivm9t7s wrote

  1. Yeah.
  2. Won't solve the issue in the long term. Put a term limit and make every president chose two new judge per presidential terms.
  3. Yeah.
  4. Making it an holiday won't solve all voting accessibility issues, but yeah, some improvements are needed.
  5. Yeah.
  6. Yeah.

evoic t1_ivmc5k0 wrote

I would vote for you if you ran on that platform.


krishopper t1_ivmmsuq wrote

Also term limits for everyone - congress, judges, and the like.


lotusflower64 t1_ivk6zmo wrote

Too bad they couldn't have law enforcement guarding the voting locations but in states like NC they would probably low key side with the proud boys or oath keepers or whatever. Sad.

I was visiting my father in San Francisco back in 1990. There were two skin head guys hanging out by the car while he made a stop at a convenience store in Half Moon Bay on the way to Carmel. I was staring at them like 'well, what are going to do to me, a big nothing' lol.

Hopefully, the voters can have the same attitude. Just go in and vote and leave.


notorious98 t1_ivkphvk wrote

Not just in NC. Precincts around the country have become inundated with christian white nationalists.


[deleted] t1_ivk8i6f wrote



Nubras t1_ivknw9q wrote

I blame Ronald Reagan and I hope he’s burning in hell for all eternity.


inksmudgedhands t1_ivkr3th wrote

Just to think that if he had been given the right script and paired up with the right director, his acting career would have thrived. And most likely he would have never left it for politics. World history as a whole would be completely different right now. We are where we are now because he was a failed actor.


thrashette t1_ivl41o8 wrote

And imagine if Hitler was a better artist (not comparing the two, before anyone comes for me.)


bbills91 t1_ivkmqwc wrote

There is no such thing as a “Good Republican Christian”. That is nothing but a big white whale, you can look all you want but you will never find one, because they do not exist


BackyardBoogie420 t1_ivk6x0d wrote

well america had a good run. welcome to maga fascism!


Fortunoxious t1_ivlwn6e wrote

Someone outside my place in NC was shouting about voting Republican to save children.

Fucking fascist pigs.


MegamanD t1_ivls30h wrote

Let me guess right wing intimidation? Don't even have to read the article to know its conservative/right-wing violence.


DrDBag t1_ivlrybh wrote

Had someone help direct me to where the drop box was when I walked the wrong way. They followed up by saying "but only if you're republican, otherwise go away"


Euripidoze t1_ivkw7et wrote

Will the democrats ever fight back? Signs point to no


TarHeel2682 t1_ivo6hre wrote

A little late now but in the future have the ACLU app on your phone and use it to record what happens. It sends the video directly to the ACLU cloud server so even if someone takes and/or destroys your phone, the video evidence is safe


[deleted] t1_ivl7vjq wrote



Valant0324 t1_ivl8enz wrote

>Blacks trying to intimidate whites, asians, and hispanics most likely.


Not even trying to hide the hood


GrimmRadiance t1_ivl9qzd wrote

This is a nothing burger until they are confirmed and validated.