Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[feelotraveller]

More evidence QAnon are the true saviours. 

[Greiger]

I voted by mail today.  Offhandedly mentioned it to my friend that it was really nice to be able to look up information on all of the local politicians that were running while I was filling out the ballot instead of having to basically just choose who has the least sleazy sounding name.

Was told that I need to tear up my ballot and not vote now because you are not supposed to be able to know that much about the candidates while voting and that it's not fair.  I asked how it's not fair and was just told that the way the polls work you aren't supposed to be able to look anyone up.

Not that there was much info to be had, most of these local candidates are for such small fry that some didn't even have a campaign page online, let alone anything remotely impartial talking about each candidate.  People talk about how important local elections are and you have to study the candidates carefully.  How's that supposed to work when there's no info to be had?  When the most information I can find is their biography page at the lawyer office they work at?

[Il Palazzo]

You're friends with Simple Jack?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

See, this is the sort of stuff I'm talking about when I call Americans arbitrary. People are out there believing this sort of stuff, having these wild digressions from any kind of commonly accepted knowledge, and voting based on those digressions. There's a guy out there who thinks Bush did 9/11 but it was a good thing since it kept most of us safe, and they're voting based on that principle.

[Greiger]

You're friends with Simple Jack?

No idea who that is  

It's entirely possible they watch them though, while me and my friend have been friends since middle school, we have very different ideas on politics, and as such end up in different places when looking for information.  He does watch a bit of Alex Jones*, if Simple Jack is anything like that I imagine he's seen it.

Edit: Looked up Simple Jack.  Believe it or not the friend I'm talking about has a bachelor's degree in computer programming, and seems really smart otherwise.  It is however the same friend that failed his drivers test multiple times, so maybe he's more the way Simple Jack was meant to be played and not full retard.

[Kagus]

Simple Jack is a fictional character referenced in the movie Tropic Thunder. Ben Stiller plays an actor whose previous "big shot" had been a film where he played the eponymous character, but that movie ended up getting panned by critics.

It's later explained to him by a fellow actor that the reason for the film's failure was because Simple Jack "went full retard". Popular mentally handicapped/challenged characters always have to have some sort of redeeming savant characteristic, whereas Simple Jack was just 100% useless and incompetent. An actor should "never go full retard", as that is a recipe for disaster.


So, Palazzo's inferring that your friend committed the ultimate booboo and "went full retard".

[hector13]

That seems like a good idea.

Don’t even have a candidate’s name, just “Candidate A” “Candidate B” etc. so nobody can even get any inkling of the candidate they vote for just in case they’ve heard their name before.

[nenjin]

That seems like a good idea.

Don’t even have a candidate’s name, just “Candidate A” “Candidate B” etc. so nobody can even get any inkling of the candidate they vote for just in case they’ve heard their name before.

Futurma already did a bit on this.



John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson.

[Kagus]

...

Have we really gotten to the point in history where "Simpsons did it" becomes "Futurama did it"?

[Greiger]

Hahaha I like Candidate B because B is kinda vaguely a euphemism for poo. - 51% of voters.

[nenjin]

...

Have we really gotten to the point in history where "Simpsons did it" becomes "Futurama did it"?

I'm afraid so. My brain initially thought it was a Simpsons bit too.

[Starver]

Was told that I need to tear up my ballot and not vote now because you are not supposed to be able to know that much about the candidates while voting and that it's not fair.  I asked how it's not fair and was just told that the way the polls work you aren't supposed to be able to look anyone up.

Sounds like he's mixed up with how it works (at least over here, but I think there too, but even more 'gamed' by the lawyer-class) when sat on a jury. That you can basically bring whatever prior knowledge you already happen to have about life into the case (short of direct connections or associations with the case and its parties) but you are forbidden to do 'independent research' outside of the courtroom and duly designated environs.

Many of the reasons why this is so for jury-duty are also reasons why it should not be so in electoral voting. (And yet, counter to both these processes there will be some who go into both process with "I'll probably just support X" in mind, long before they know the alternative(s).)


And surely it's verging on voter-suppression to tell someone they should not vote... Regardless of if that potential vote is known (or even suspected), or which way it would/will go, although targetted supression (by design or emergent from an asymmetry of effect) is even worse.

[Reelya]

Looks like Trump's ordered hospitals not to send covid data to the CDC, but instead straight to the white house. They've got a bespoke database built by private company Palantir, which is run by Trump supporter Peter Thiel. So effectively they want to hoover up all the Covid data and stick it into some proprietary database run and managed by a third party pro-Trump company. Sounds like a nightmare for transparency, and the motivation is clear, since they'll have a private database with all the data in it, Trump can finally control those "numbers" he's always worried about.

[Dostoevsky]

They might also be a bit mixed up about the rules/laws regarding people not being able to bring electoral materials within a certain distance of voting places. E.g. putting up campaign ads on the walls of a polling facility is a no-no. Still perfectly fine for you to bring your own reference materials into a voting place, I think, but you're not supposed to be sharing them in a way that could be seen as electoral lobbying.

As an example, there are groups that put together sample ballots - possibly the blunt type of 'here's how you should vote', possibly the type of showing each candidate's answer to various questions and letting you decide. You can take that into the polling place with you for your own use, but you can't hand that out to other people.

On a personal note, the latter type of sample ballot I mention is pretty handy. There's a national group in my state that prepares these pretty well and I get a copy a few weeks before the election, so it provides a great jump start on doing research on the local candidates up for a vote.

[MrRoboto75]

don't worry, buy GOYA(tm) beans