It was that speech where a female from CA I think told him “see you in court” around 22nd Feb, and this was regarding trans’ rights I believe.
I watched some of it live. He talked about lots of things and said he wants to ban all voting booths and have paper ballots and that (in his typical self) “there won’t be cheating, they have advanced technology, really advanced stuff. It’s called… “watermark”. It’s really great”.
Combined with the accusations that there were indeed cheating by paper ballots for some states, it’s kinda the smoking gun that would mean he perhaps shouldn’t be president?
Why is no one here talking about this? Why is no one outraged?
World is for everything BUT US News and Politics.
You want !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
+1 for paper ballots (relevant xkcd )
-9999 for banning voting booths
If the postal service isn’t a political target, then post voting is excellent.
Ballots can be mailed weeks in advance, they can be collected by a deadline, they can then be counted.
But we’ve seen Americas right wing go after USPS, so - quite frankly - I don’t see any way it is as fool-proof as in-person voting.
Voting day needs to be a holiday, or employers need to give PTO for voting.None of which will happen.
Voting booths will be banned.
USPS will be compromised/defunded to the point it can’t carry out it’s duties.
Only the people that can schedule the time with Electoral College personnel will be able to actually register a vote.I am not 100 % sure I understand your point here. Using paper ballots doesn’t mean you have to submit your vote via mail. You can still use local polling stations.
I assume you are from the US, so here is what we do in Germany:
- You are notified via mail of the upcoming election you are eligible to take part in (No special registration required, only the usual registry with the municipality if you move to a new place)
- Option A: You opt in for a (paper) mail ballot
- You receive a ballot via mail that you fill out and then double wrap the ballot: The ballot goes into an official unmarked envelope that is later placed with every other mail-in ballot of the district. The unmarked enveloped goes into a regular envelope for transportation via mail (which is free of charge)
- Option B: On the day of the election, you head to your assigned local polling station
- You identify yourself by one of the official forms (Personal ID, driving licence, passport)
- You are handed a blank paper ballot ([example from northern Germany](file:///home/se/Downloads/Muster-Stimmzettel_zur_Bundestagswahl_2025_im_Wahlkreis_1.PDF))
- You make your choice behind a privacy screen
- Law declares that the head of the local election council has to be able to view both the booth and the voter (but of course not the vote) except in some special circumstances.
- The ballot is then placed in a sealed urn
- After the deadline at 18:00 the urn is unsealed and votes are counted
- Critically: This counting is public. While not many people do, it is explicitly allowed to watch the officials at this stage
- After tallying the votes, the ballots are bundled up, sealed and handed to the officials on the municipality level.
One of the many issues with electronic voting are those last two steps: Examining the votes can never be public, as we are simply unable to look at the state of all electrons in a computer.
In the US we don’t get any kind of notifications. In fact republicans are trying to remove any kind of notice to anyone. So leave that part out.
Option A is currently trying to be eliminated by the existing administration. So no go
Option B: This is the part about removing the privacy screens. Here we call them voting booths.
Also you can’t allow the entire public to actually review all f the paper ballots. There are simply to many people and too many ballots. There is no difference than your attempt at claiming we ‘can’t review the electrons. Which show a complete lack of understanding how digital data is processed and stored.
No, from the UK.
I don’t understand how the US can want to have 100% paper ballots, but ban voting booths (which to me means, in person voting). This essentially leaves postal voting.
And USPS has been repeatedly targeted by right wing politics.What kind of paper voting system is left without in-person, if USPS is compromised?
President Donald Trump on Friday [21st Feb 2025, I think] said he may put the U.S. Postal Service under the control of the Commerce Department in what would be an executive branch takeover of the agency, which has operated as an independent entity since 1970. https://apnews.com/article/trump-postal-service-usps-what-to-know-672db6c590837411ca3ba36966e374e1
So paper votes only, no voting booths… Leave postal votes. And the government controls the postal service.
What else is there?I’ll be the first to admit I have no idea what my Chucklefuck in Chief means by trying to get rid of voting booths.
But if I had to guess, I think he means literally the booths. As in, no privacy. Just paper on a desk where anyone can see what you’re doing.
If it isn’t clear, this fucker has no idea what a free and fair election is SUPPOSED to look like. He just wants to make sure whatever system we end up with favors him and him alone. And for some reason, voting booths are catching his ire. Maybe he feels insecure not knowing if Melania actually voted for him.
There are no issues with electronic voting.
Because he’s flooded public discourse with plenty of other things people are outraged over?
I’m actually for paper voting. The largest producer of voting machines in the US (ES&S) got in trouble in 2019 for having their voting machines connected to the internet with remote access software installed, denied it, and then later admitted that it was true for at least some of their machines.
Also their CEO insists that even when using voting machines, that there needs to be a paper record of every vote cast for it to be trustworthy and verifiable.
Because so much bullshit is said and done everyday since January that a lot things just slip under the radar or don’t get reported anymore.
Because old people welcome it, regardless of how difficult it would be for everyone, and young people don’t vote.
Paper ballots make cheating much more difficult than electronic ones do. I’m not sure why Trump demands paper ballots, but in my opinion they are the only sensible option.
Where I live, all elections are always strictly 100 % paper ballots, and it is isn’t really a problem. Yeah, you need people to count them, but those people are reasonably easy to find. And the ballot counting scales easily from a few hundred votes to several hundred millions of votes.
No they’re not. Russia china north korea and dozens of other autocratic regimes use paper ballots and it doesn’t stop them from cheating in anyway. This is a Luddite myth that won’t die.
Sounds great till you live somewhere like Texas where they have closed down large swaths of places to vote and you have to drive and/or wait hours outside in the hot sun. And they don’t allow organizations to pass out bottled water.
That just means they need to open more places to vote. One shouldn’t have to go far or wait more than a few minutes in order to vote. That the US allows these scandalous practices is beyond belief.
Problem is that lack of places to vote isn’t a bug. It’s a feature. It means people who don’t have access to transport or who have do work during the day have a more difficult time voting. Not everyone has the time to drive somewhere and then stand in line for hours. Republicans have used this as one of their techniques to discourage certain groups of people from voting at all.
And I don’t understand why anyone is allowing them to do this. It’s clearly anti-democratic abuse.
That just means they need to open more places to vote.
Better chance of winning the lottery a few times.
One shouldn’t have to go far or wait more than a few minutes in order to vote.
In a fair and just system you would be correct. Not in America.
That the US allows these scandalous practices is beyond belief.
Did you see the piece of shit half of US voters thought “that’ll do”? We have nearly half a billion guns but not enough brain cells to best an ameoba in a kindergarten trivia contest.
I don’t think it matters whether after those hours of travelling and queuing you need to press buttons on a touch screen or scribble two or three numbers on a piece of paper.
Neither case makes the drive any shorter.
Shit, paper ballots are EZPZ af here in WA. You get your ballot pamphlet mailed way ahead of time to look up anything you want (and cross check online). Then your ballot arrives, you ostensibly fill out (or don’t, I’m not the boss of you), and mail it right back. Even comes with a tracking code.
No idea why I’d trade that for actually going to some place just to hope that the software devs didn’t back door the voting machine.
E: that said, I’ve heard that Estonia has (had?) electronic voting nailed down, so maybe they don’t have worry about the corruption we do in the states.
I never got how the hell the US ever accepted electronic voting machines without the software being completely out in the open. I do not oppose paper ballots, I do oppose for obvious reasons not being able to do your vote in secrecy
Here’s a list of countries that currently use electric voting. Notice some countries that are missing. Can you note any commonalities between those missing countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting_by_country
For those who simply have no semblance of thought. None of the most autocratic regimes are on this list. The myth that part ballots are any more safe is just that a myth. It’s the people running the elections that make it secure or not, not the method used. Corruptions and fuck ups can happen in any system. There will come a point where there is simply not enough time to put human hands on every ballot cast we must be ready for that. Acting like we can continue to use outdated methods is just putting your heads in the sand.
Were the voting machines supposed to be an answer to hanging chads?
Sorry, wrong community. Better use " no stupid question " or “politics” .
