Slashdot Mirror
US Election Year, Still No Voting Reform
An anonymous reader writes "A year ago, we discussed this on Slashdot: E-Voting Reform In an Out Year?. The point was that due to the hoard of problems with electronic (and mechanical) voting, it is best to approach reform in an out year, when it is not on everyone's mind yet too late to do anything about it. Well, we failed, didn't we? Another election year is upon us, and our vote is less secure, less reliable, and less meaningful than ever. To reference the last article, we still have no open source voting, no end-to-end auditable voting systems and no open source governance. So don't complain if this election is stolen. You forgot to fix the system."
... we have an election where close races are open to challenges based on the inability to have a reliable recount.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Is there a good package that
1) protects privacy
2) is online
3) allows voter to confirm or change their vote
4) allows anybody to count the votes
5) have I missed anything?
We have one. It's called the "paper ballot".
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
No one worthwhile to vote for, and congress will screw up everything anyway, so even if you DID fix the voting, nothing would change.
If voting actually worked, they'd probably outlaw it.
So don't complain if this election is stolen. You forgot to fix the system.
The system doesn't want to be fixed. It is, of course, setup that way on purpose. Sometimes it is better to just start over than it is to try to fix something broken beyond repair. If voting actually had the power to change anything, it would most certainly be illegal.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
You think voting is anything other than a public circlejerk to keep people busy.
Ahh to be young and stupid again.
E-voting cannot be transparent and therefor cannot be acceptable.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I'm more interested in the results that a different kind of voting system would produce, such as how the ability to rank candidates on a ballot would affect campaign strategy and the kinds of people we'd elect.
"We"? Who is this "we"? Here in New Hampshire, they passed a paper trail law in 1994 and we've not had any of these problems.
Liberty in your lifetime
Damned homophones!
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
I live in what the Europeans like to call the backwater redneck racist Christian "fly-over" part of America. I guess we are so stupid here that our voting system isn't worthy of being audited. We are so stupid that the state actually has a balanced budget.. what a bunch of inbred hicks we are.
All we have here are simple to fill out scantron ballots that are anonymous, simple to scan in, and trivially easy to recount in an offline manner if needed. We get our election results within hours of the polls closing on election day. Oh and as for software, the software in the system is so simple that Windows vs. Linux doesn't even enter into the equation because you don't need either.
Frankly, even if the voting software is "open source" on some website, you have zero guarantees that the voting machine you are using actually runs the wonderful open source software you spent months auditing in the first place.
We are so backwards here. I feel so inadequate compared to those places that blew tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money on systems that don't work. You can tell they are *so* much superior to us.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
... get the basics right.
Like having an non-partisan public service, a non-partisan committee of civil servants administering the election and drawing the boundaries?
Like any non-banana republic?
From the point of view of other Anglo-Saxon countries, and Europe, the US is a basketcase.
Recent US elections, e.g. Florida during Bush Jr's reelection campaign, would make disgrace your average Third World shithole, let alone the richest and most powerful nation on Earth.
People would rather blame an election on stolen votes instead of realizing the electorate really is that stupid.
The powers that be have both of their choices lined up. It's a win-win for them and a lose-lose for us.
Putting rhetoric aside, can anyone tell me what real policy differences there are? From what I've seen it's a matter of degree not direction.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
In so much as it is the candidate my voting machine company has coded into the ballot software.
Well, that was about the same threat as the Diebold chief.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I guess the original article is a year-old Slashdot discussion for this one.... so some of us may *actually* have read it, but surely we don't remember and for the integrity of this discussion I hope nobody goes back and re-reads it.
Yes agreed, The Point Zero One decide who wins, and what the "winner" will say and do... Goodbye democracy old friend.
And more out of touch? You seriously think that the electoral process could be completely changed in one year? You'd probably do as well not to vote given that you clearly have a very poor understanding of how the system actually works. You seem to want a dictatorship, which is the only kind of government where such sweeping reforms could be discussed and implemented across a large diverse nation in such a short time.
Also as for all your whines about auditing and transparency, that is actually something existing paper ballots are quite good at. There is a permanent record of the votes, they can and are counted in open forums by multiple people and so on. They have their issues to be sure but openness and auditing aren't big ones.
E-voting is a complex issue. It isn't the sort of thing we want to rush in to.
No, just because your preferred candidate doesn't win, doesn't mean the election was "stolen".
First things first. How about we just get Voter ID laws passed first so we know who is actually voting. Then we can work on getting everyone the simple scan-trons that work so well around here.
But..but..Voter ID laws disenfranchise people! Of all the things you need an ID for in life many of them are much less important that voting. Nothing worse than going to the polls and finding someone (unique name) already signed in as you and voted.
If a local alcohol- or bond-election is within a few votes and there are more than that number of non-verifiable e-ballots, you may see a local judge invalidate the election and force a do-over.
No local entity is going to want to put up with having to pay for two elections.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Democracy is dead. In today's world of overflowing money, the one with the largest pockets will win.
In Mexico, we claim to have an institution dedicated to fight Vote Fraud, but despite innumerable amounts of proof that PRI (Political Party) bought votes, and people purposedly miscounted votes, or nulled them, they've done absolutely nothing.
It doesn't matter the system, analog or digital. They (The ones with power) impose whoever they want. I've given up trying.
Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
the system isn't fixable
Don't Vote!
It just encourages the bastards!
I think he meant to say "horde of problems" (meaning a great amount of them). However, perhaps under the circumstances, "hoard" (meaning a stash that is being purposely hidden away) is just as appropriate. :-(
Maybe this is a naive question, but what's wrong with bubble sheet voting ballots? Like those "A-B-C-D-E" forms you filled out when you took the SAT in high school. That's basically what we use in Minnesota, but just a little different because voting isn't just "A-B-C-D-E".
Everyone knows how to fill out bubble sheets, so they're dead simple to use. When you've voted, you insert them into a scanner (it's also a locked box, old-fashioned key-and-lock, so no one except election officials can access they ballots once they're inserted). The scanner checks for simple stuff like "Did you vote for more than one presidential candidate?" and immediately spits your ballot out if it finds a problem. I made a mistake on my ballot once, and there's a simple, established procedure where they destroy your invalid ballot in front of you and issue you another ballot so you can vote again. It's easy.
And bubble sheets are anonymous. No worrying about "Can someone figure out how I voted?"
Above all, bubble sheets are auditable. While the scanners can easily keep track of how many votes for Obama v Romney, election officials can always go back to manually count the bubble sheets in the case of a recount. You may have heard about our 2008 recount - they manually recounted the bubble sheets.
Full Spectrum Dominance: Why transactional data matters
During the Bush administration, at least on several occasions, the entire warrantless eavesdropping or wiretapping and FISA made the national news cycle for several days ---- yet each time, oddly enough, it was knocked off by the news of national immigration marches.
What exactly was really accomplished by those national immigration marches?
Other than occupying the news space on those days?
Next obvious question would be who owned those Spanish-language radio stations responsible for organizing those marches?
At that time, the major financial stake in those stations belonged to the private equity firm, the Blackstone Group, chaired by Peter G. Peterson, protégé of David Rockefeller.
During that time the Blackstone Group also had a financial stake in telecoms in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Poland, Italy, Portugal and Malta (Malta being an important nexus point, or physical exchange point, between Europe, North Africa and the Middle East), as well as one of the three major privatized global satellite networks at that period, New Skies Network (officially later sold off, but we never checked to see if Blackstone Group actually owned the company it was sold to?).
So those national marches, which knocked warrantless wiretapping off the news cycle and involved AT&T, were organized by Blackstone Group-owned radio stations, chaired by the fellow whose financial-economic-political mentor was David Rockefeller.
Now AT&T was broken up --- on paper at least --- but can anyone provide definite data to prove it was ever actually financially divested?
Negative!
Now, traditionally, AT&T was a Rockefeller-Morgan financial entity, which, by the way, happens to have re-conglomerated back to its original form, thanks in part to President Bill Clinton’s Telecommunications Act of 1996.
And who led the charge in congress to grant immunity to AT&T and those telecoms involved in that warrantless wiretapping for the government?
None other than Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia!
My oh my, how those coincidences pile up?
Recently, some very serious legislation has passed into law --- while other equally dangerous legislation has failed, for now --- although that failed legislation attacked net neutrality (equality of access to the Internet), it was really only to make into law that which is quickly becoming reality --- the end of net neutrality!
Laws have been passed, in America and Europe and elsewhere, requiring ISPs to retain your data for 1 to 3 years or more.
Why is this important to the ruling elites?
Transactional data, surrounding information, dot connection, global linkage.
Using existing DPI techniques (Deep Packet Inspection), they can virtually identify and extract information about you, your life, your family, the like of which most people cannot even imagine.
Data mining hit critical mass around 2003 to 2004; and all it then required to identify a person exactly was their age and zip code --- today it probably requires less.
A little while ago, a fellow from the New America Foundation wrote a book on ExxonMobil --- focusing on the personalities of its chief executives, and went on a book tour where not a single person who interviewed him (including NPR’s Terry Gross and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!) inquired as to the ownership of ExxonMobil?
Now isn’t that freaking amazing? ? ? ?
Of course, New America Foundation is funded by the Peterson Foundation, endowed by Peter G. Peterson, protégé of David Rockefeller. (ExxonMobil is a re-combining of the original Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Companies --- which were once broken up --- at least on paper --- as no valid data exists to suggest otherwise.)
AT&T? ExxonMobil? Are we beginning to note a pa
We should require that every person fit to vote (adults not a felon not crazy/senile) do so or have "standing votes" where if you declare as %party% then unless you formally vote otherwise you count as having voted for the %party% candidate (require formal voting every Nth time to remain an active voter).
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
The main election reform would be to get rid of the first-past-the-post system. Almost any other system is better. My favorite is the proportional scheme, but I think approval voting would be the most suitable incremental upgrade path for America. It's simple: just choose any number of candidates you want and all votes are counted. Or you could keep on voting like you always did. But it would give a chance for new ideas to grow and be measured fairly in the elections.
Another election year is upon us, and our vote is less secure, less reliable, and less meaningful than ever. To reference the last article, we still have no open source voting, no end-to-end auditable voting systems and no open source governance.
We also have no credible evidence of any organized tampering of the vote, either in mechanical or electronic forms. The systems may be wrong, but they are probably no worse than they have ever been, and I haven't seen any smoking gun saying that the machines were tampered with.
I do see 3 forms of election fraud/dirty tricks commonly alleged:
1. Fraudulent registrations. Indicated by people with no valid address or suspicious numbers of people residing at the same address. Not something an electronic voting system can address.
2. Felons voting while still on probation. Not clear that felons vote for one party vs another, but even if it is organized, not something that e-voting would address.
3. Dirty tricks along the lines of too few ballots or machines delivered to certain precincts causing long lines. Or making precincts inconveniently large. These are potentially done by one party or the other, but a certain number of these snafus are certainly due to incompetence or unexpectedly high voter turnouts. Also not something that changing the voting machines would address.
So what is the problem that we are trying to solve again?
You can't tell Mittens' policies apart from Obama's without an electron microscope anyways. Flip a coin for it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Once digital, always vulnerable. Black on white. What is written, that is given. Volatile electrical charges need not apply here.
Political Castration of US is the baseline requirement for a nazi-republic or banana-republic north of the Río Bravo del Norte.
Federal Union of Christian Kindness (FUCK) US will be a great republic of faux-christians, patriot-chickens, and pseudo-capitalist that excel at flag-waving, dogma-thumping, book-burning for the plutocrat-elites and their mindless neut-gestapo serial killers.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
The problem is the voting system only allows one vote per voter. You can prove, mathematically, that a "pluralistic" voting system winds up electing better candidates. It also makes it hard/impossible for a 2 party system to push out 3rd party candidates.
There's a number of ways to do it. One is to give every voter N-1 votes and let them assign their votes to amongst the N candidates. Another is to have them rank the candidates in order of preference. (I.E. Johnson > Obama > Paul > Romney might be one ranking.)
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Look, tampering or wholesale stealing of the vote is about the worst thing that can happen in a democracy. No really.
So punish the people caught with VERY severe punishments, like multi-decade stints in prison (sorry I'm against the death penalty). That way, even if you catch a little fish, chances are good he'll squeal like a pig and rat out the higher ups.
My only fear is that some of the people who are crazy motivated might actually think that their cause is worth sacrificing the rest of their lives for. Fortunately the U.S. hasn't quite gotten to the point where those people are more than a tiny fraction of the population; otherwise you'd see suicide bombers at political events.
(Also, "dirty tactics" like fraudulent robo-calls which claim to be someone who they aren't or send people to the wrong polling place, should have their punishments significantly increased. Again, you're subverting the basic premise of a democracy).
there is no longer a difference between reps and dems
they are opposite sides of the same broken system
both sides are bought and paid for by the corporate hegemony
the A vs B voting paradigm is the matrix
it is placed there to give you an illusion of control
get rid of A and B, then start fresh, without reps and dems, voting systems are useless until then :)
Subject + if you're dead, alive, illegal, a figure of imagination - who cares?
Just don't ask the dead people for an ID to make sure they really are the dead person that they say that they say they are. If you do, you are very likely to end up in a lawsuit. Apparently, dead people don't like to have people ask them for their ID. Perhaps they don't have pockets.
... always come out whenever "elections" are mentioned.
As though it actually doesn't matter who we vote for. It does. It's just that we always* vote for the same type of politician. We are gullible. It's also interesting that, even with all the cynicism, we have remarkably different states. Compare New York to Texas. There's a world of difference in the politicians, in the laws, in how people live, etc. So to think that "all politicians" or "all governors" are the same and it "doesn't matter who you vote for" ... to me, that smacks of either ignorant or exaggerated cynicism that ignores differences. To think that someone elected from the "Tea Party" is actually the same as Ye Olde Republican or Ye Olde Democrat party is ... well, pretty weird. You may think, of course, that TP and R/D politicians are all alike in that they are all politicians and motivated by corporate money, but even that seems a bit of a stretch. You may also think they are all extremists, but that's a stretch. But to say they're all the same [and get modded Insightful] is... meh. Cynical. :)
* Of course, there are exceptions. :)
No one's vote counts at the federal level. With 300,000,000 people in the country, there is no possible way to have representative government. Federal elections are as meaningful as beauty contests, only more corrupt.
This is the single biggest argument for federalism, i.e., limiting federal power and keeping government as local as possible.
In a local election, you can actually have an influence. Not only your vote, but your ability to contact and coordinate with some meaningful fraction of the electorate.
This argument can be applied recursively. What can be done at the township level, should be.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
SLASHDOT itself dropped the ball.
Don't complain when CIVIL WAR happens
OT: OMG my captcha is "reelects"!!! For real.
We absolutely must ask dead people for ID before they vote in the next One World Gummit 'Lection. We need to make sure they prove their citizenship too. We don't want no dead aliens trying to vote unless they get their citizenship first. Yes, no-longer-living sentient beings from other planets, I'm looking at you.
I'd rather give one candidate a negative vote than merely give the other candidate a positive one.
Why is this year less secure or reliable than last year? Perhaps not better, but I don't see it as any worse.
It really isn't. What we're talking about here is voting platform reform. I don't really care how voting is done (via computerized terminal, via paper ballot, or even via Internet, after all I can file my taxes online). What I care about is that the system we have in place for voting for candidates almost always elects a candidate that a minority (generally a superminority) actually wants to be president. It also gives political parties extreme power based on sheer advertisement; most people view it as this-guy-or-that-guy and so they just pick the one they don't like and vote for the other guy. Political advertisement capitalizes on this behavior which is indeed caused by FPTP. It's also susceptible to gerrymandering and isn't friendly to new parties. And the entire electoral college is completely unnecessary given modern transportation systems, so we need to throw that out altogether.
Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
When we say "voting reform," I fundamentally mean that I want the actual voting system we use changed. We need a system that isn't susceptible to gerrymandering, that doesn't suffer from the spoiler effect, and that meets the condorcet criterion. Take your pick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system. On top of that, we need to shut down campaign contributions from corporations, political advertisement in main-stream media, and require all of the relevant information be gathered somewhere online like at vote.gov or something and make it accessible to everyone via public libraries, etc.
There's a lot of reform that needs to be done, the least of which is how we collect votes. Come on guys, this is such a strawman to the real issues. Having your vote for dumbass #1 stolen and given to dumbass #2 doesn't matter. You are getting a dumbass as president almost nobody wants either way.
Asking for voting reform in America is a red herring, the real issue is to get the Internet to fix the imbalances that weren't anticipated when the Constitution was formulated, edge cases which, at the end of growth, have now become major crisiis. The "Founding Fathers" could have never anticipated the rise of media technology and how it would affect the democratic need for an informed citizenry. The Internet could be the basis for a true "Fourth Estate" as well provide a new basis for value generation to get us out of the destructive, top-heavy, Industrial paradigm.
...He comes from the future.
It's also a good justification for the original method of having state legislatures elect Senators. With only a few hundred people in their electorate they were far more accountable. Not to mention their electorate were all politicians themselves, so they knew the dirty tricks to watch out for. Admittedly looking out for the interests of the state legislators is not necessarily synonymous with looking out for the interests of the people, but that's what the House of Representatives was for - a populous counterbalance that (theoretically) represented the will of the people, but by necessity was far less accountable as well.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Maybe, if some group wants some sort of change (voting reform for example) they should just raise the money and pay the politicians to make the changes. It could be something like Kickstarter could be a vehicle for raising the money. If it is a popular idea lots of people donate and pay for the changes.
Some one can post there great idea for some legislation. A bunch of people donate. The person with the idea can for a Super PAC of hirer lobbyists and try to get the changes made. At the very least they would have some influence in the direction legislation goes.
It would not be that different than what is going on now.
That would require voter ID, and Democrats are against that.
Ostensibly this is because getting an ID costs money, and that amounts ot a poll tax. I could agree with that argument, but then they still complain when laws are passed that make the ID free if a person can't afford it. The truth lies in a recent attempt in North Carolina to remove foreign consulate matricula cards from the list of valid forms of identification that can lead to someone getting a driver's license (valid state ID). The Democrats oppose this.
You may now laugh and then pause for a few moments realizing that you're affected by this mess, even if you're not in the US.
It's the economy, stupid.
We can't fucking get congress to pay for shit they passed, you want more oversight?
WTF country ARE you talking about?
Look, you've got 2 options:
Be an American and bicker about not doing the right things.
Not be an American and complain that we're not doing thing right.
You want to fix it? Elect a bunch of Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans. Otherwise, we're going to keep doing this for the next half-century.
Just do completely mail based ballots.
* It's convenient because people fill their ballots out in the comfort of their own home
* It's more efficient because you don't need to open up poll booths
* It's harder to stuff ballots because each person only gets one ballot in their mailbox
* It's secure and confidential due to existing laws that already make theft, tampering, or interception of mail a federal offense
Any reasonable individual with a common understanding KNOWS that voting reform would result in perpetual rule by the Democratic Party. This would be a good thing for those who think that they are entitled to someone else's money by reason of their membership in Homo sapiens sapiens. This would be terrible for the rest who believe in inherently bigoted concepts such as individual liberty, private property and voluntary exchange.
--
It's time to waste the mod points
The e-voting systems are performing their function. Insiders at companies providing and maintaining the machines will tip elections into the Republicans' favor, if and when necessary, if the margins are razor thin and they can slip in techs to "fix" things. Or probably they don't need to do that anymore - they've had a decade to set the backdoors in place so they don't need to go in physically.
(2008 was not necessary - they need Democratic Presidents to blame things on when they have their inevitable economic collapses. And since they won't let a Democrat actually *be* a President, by fillibustering every bill and refusing to seat his judicial appointments, it's not like a Democrat can do anything but take the blame for the extremely active Republican President who precedes him.)
We are now living in the Republican permanent empire. And with "conservatives" in Canada running to "fix" their perfectly verifiable pencil-and-paper system with wonderful e-voting supersystems, Canada will be Harpered forever as well. It's good to be the magic genie behind the screen.
Ireland did it right. Junk the cheatmatic magic voting boxes.
Listen, if they can cheat, they ARE cheating. Their ethics are business ethics, ie none but winning at any cost.
With paper ballots, we have the 3 problems you mention. They can be addressed separately.
With an non-audit-able election, we have the additional problem of a lack of faith in the votes themselves. EVEN ABSENT ANY FRAUD, if people don't trust the vote then we have a huge problem.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://www.paul-robinson.us/index.php/2008/10/25/the_robinson_method_a_really_simple_way_?blog=5
Every time there is an article about the problems with voting fraud, on Slashdot, I post up this link, every time it's either ignored, or some douchebags try to find problems with it, that don't exist. Are you afraid of real democracy or something?
Problem is not the technology used for voting, but the voting system itself. First-past-the-post has about the worst mathematical properties of any voting system, the voters are inevitable getting screwed.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Compliance_of_selected_systems_.28table.29
Its unfair by design. Something like range voting would be much, much fairer, even though its not perfect either.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Oops, my bad. I'll get right on that.
Ass.
But then others living in the same household can coerce someone to vote for particular candidates and verify that they have indeed done so.
I know that some states use mail-in ballots extensively in spite of this fact... which I find suprising.
I have to say that with all the emphasis on "voter suppression" or "voter fraud prevention" this election, and the partisan BS that comes with the past few years, I don't know if I trust the current batch to change the system. We would need every provision and every aspect of the system to be monitored by at least one non-partisan non-profit third party with no political agenda.
I think we would have an easier time finding a flock of benevolent mind-readers to remotely sense the majority of public opinion while riding through town on a pack of domesticated unicorns.
There are two very conflicting requirements for US voting - handicapped access and secret ballots. What they have tried to do with the current "electronic voting" machines is balance these two things and pretty much not considered anything else. I believe this is intentional and not because of a desired insecurity but because those two items are on the list from federal and state requirements - and nowhere do things like auditability or security appear on the list of requirements.
Why can't the US just use paper ballots? Because they aren't handicapped-friendly. The US also has an issue with language - in many counties they have to print ballots in multiple languages as there is no such thing as an official language or languages for anywhere in the US today. After a bunch of lawsuits it pretty much means that you can go into a polling place and request a ballot in Klingon and they have to give you one or pay a huge fine. You can bet these counties want to have screens and not paper for ballots.
Another problem is all voting in the US is handled at the county level. Some decisions are made at the state level, but not very many. This means that you can have the newest electronic machine in one county whereas the county 20 miles east is using a ScanTron system from the 1980s. I believe it was the Help America Vote Act which tried to push enough money into counties to get everyone using some kind of post-1980s technology but I do not know how well that worked.
So, could auditability be handled with maintaining secret ballots? Maybe. Could auditability be put on the list of requirements for an "approved" voting machine at the federal level and force all states (and counties) to adopt such requirements? Probably. But the secret ballot requirement makes things tougher. You can pretty much forget any paper-based system for the US - it would not meet with requirements for handicapped access and there would be huge expenses in some counties for multiple languages. Not, Going. To. Happen.
Can there be a "secure" electronic system that meets the current secrecy and handicapped access requirements? I'm sure it is possible, but it isn't any of the current systems and we aren't going to see it for a while.
With the way the 2 parties act- both trying to screw the average citizen, but in different ways- do you see any good changes coming? I still vote every year (yes every year, not just every 4), though, in the obscure hope that maybe someone I think can make things better will get elected.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Voters are suffering from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Casteism
...we were given tools within the constitution to fix things legally, and also given protections when all legal means have failed; yet you're all content to accept the status quo and essentially give up and accept a flawed system......it's pathetic is what it is.
"Oh boo hoo the system's broken and would be even if we fixed it."....our forefathers are spinning in their graves. Take the nation back from the tyrants or be content to live in chains.
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.