jj4211

Somehow Spock returned

People voted against however things were because of the pandemic. Trump was in charge, so he caught the general dissatfication with everything.

Now the sting of inflation last year likely has a lot of those same people again upset at how things are and vote for change again, whoever it will be.

Also, 2020 was the most accessible election in history, with so much flexibility for remote voting and so many people not stuck at work unable to find time to vote. The gop has been changing that, locking down absentee voting more, successfully getting voting id laws passed, and reducing early voting sites and hours. People are too busy working at their workplace again, and access to voting is reduced.

Because money means influence. Whether it's the nation to benefit or the myriad of US tech companies that want it to stay, or other international interests, it's way too much potential influence and I suspect cannot be ignored for some strict adherence to rules that no one really would care to defend.

Note that a lot of the people that are in trouble this time are hundreds of miles inland in mountains.. .

The shockingly high number of people with high end phones are still, by global standards, pretty damn rich.

money might not be relevant to them

Hilarious.

I doubt it. The cited precedent of .yu didn't have a ton of big international commercial interest, but .io does.

They will absolutely find a rationale to change what io means when ISO retires io. The "laws" will be tweaked, ignored, or loopholed around.

Well technically the 'minimum' has almost no bottom. One tortured example, if you had a single voter per state for the biggest 11 states all vote for one candidate, but every other one of the 118 million eligible voters in other states voted the other way, then those 11 people will win.

I can understand the strategy this time

One of the big motivators for the left is that Trump has made credible threats about undermining votes and folks have signed up for it. A fear of having your voice forever silenced in the political system is a strong motivator. You can see because pundits for Trump keep trying to turn it around and say "nuh uh, the Democrats are the ones that will take away your voice", which generally rings hollow because there's zero history or rhetoric in the Democratic party to even suggest that.

This could be the sort of rhetoric those Republicans have been wanting. A Democrat proposing a fundamental change to the biggest election that everyone knows would usually prevent a Republican win for that office. We wouldn't have had either Republican president in the last 30 years. This could energize scared Republicans or feed the "but both sides" distraction.

It may make tons of sense, but it's a huge risk of scaring people to vote against Democrats that might have otherwise sat it out.

It's not the story in general, it's the "but always a man" that's objectionable.

If it weren't for that "but always a man", there would be no issue. Celebrating "but always a man" is the issue driving objections here.

That's one hell of a strawman to invent and ascribe to folks who have no whiff of implying minorities shouldn't receive representation.