this post was submitted on 11 Apr 2026
45 points (100.0% liked)
Slop.
832 readers
596 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Tbh I do believe that the Republicans could have stolen the 2024 election. They had no problem stealing 2000, some weird shit happened in 2004 to their favor, in 2016 they won on a technicality, and they did try to change the outcome of 2020 as well (no matter how ridiculous the whole thing was).
If someone does believe the Republicans illegally subverted democracy the question should be why they would continue to support Democrats who have done absolutely nothing to fight back for decades though.
+ at least some of the voting computers are rigged for sure. There is no fucking way that the entire political apparatus if corrupt at every level but the voting computers are the exception.
No need to rig elections in a system where the bourgeois candidates have a 100% chance of victory.
The real rigging begins with curating public opinion via the bourgeois press, but this is 100% "works as intended" in western systems.
I don't doubt that voting machines have been compromised and used by interested parties to alter counts, but I am skeptical that this would be done at any scale significant enough to swing results because breaking the widespread belief in the system that legitimizes their rule would be more detrimental to their bottom line than getting a marginally less pro capital candidate in office.
There've been people calling out electronic voting machines for security vulnerabilities for just about as long as I've been able to vote. I'm pretty sure most other countries just use paper ballots and those are fine.
Yeah it's often faster too.
They do, and they are. There are better ways of doing it with computers, but we sure as hell don't use any of them throughout the empire. Doing secure, fast, and accurate digital voting is a solved problem.
I figure they all cheat. Gangs of New York was a documentary with that one scene about elections in the 1800's. Why would they ever have stopped cheating?
?
Electoral college is a technicality, Hilary won the popular vote
it's not a technicality it's the whole thing
ok but it seems to me as an outsider though if you have a vote that someone wins then you have another layer on the vote that ensures slave owners control the country that is a technicality. Death to the USA
just the system working as designed. If you hate yourself and want to read correspondence from the bourgeoise founders of the state, several of them were anti-democracy and designed things to keep the rabble under control.
George Washington rabidly foaming at the mouth that Governor Dunmore encouraging slaves to seek freedom was the greatest threat to liberty. They weren't interested in equality. They were only interested in being the ones in power.
They don't teach that here
That's true but I also think technicality is a fair word for it, even though it fails to capture just how depraved the system was
technicality to me connotes an obscure detail. all the news coverage is full electoral vote maps and 270 to win etc.
in this frame the technicality would be that people actually vote for a slate of electors who then vote for who gets the state's electoral votes, and they are allowed to do chicanery in between you filling in an oval and the points actually being assigned to candidates, but there have been almost zero faithless electors historically.
Yeah I'm not disagreeing, I just think it's fair to believe it's bullshit that the person with the most votes doesn't win.
it's especially bullshit after the civil war was partially resolved. It maybe made more sense when the states were meant to be more independent, but (speaking with extreme liberalism) they should've gotten rid of it when they changed to direct election of senators.
Technically
No, that's just what the election is. Just because it should work by popular vote doesn't mean it not doing so is a technicality, it just means it's a bad system for our purposes.
Sure whatever you say. Fuck the English language and I resent knowing it to be employed.