Donald Trump announces plan to change elections

This is why he wants to do that.
- Thanks for putting that plain text from the top of the post into a jpeg down in the comments.
  
  Not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I couldn't copy the plain text on jerboa, so I had to screen shot.
- When he declared Nov would be the last election, and winning it meant they wouldn't have to worry about elections again, he meant it!
  He's doing exactly what he said he would do.
  
  Yup. When a fascist tells you they are a fascist, believe them.
- When rural voters overwhelmingly voted for you, making it harder for them to vote seems like a great way to shoot yourself in the foot.
- they can also add rules to restrict the number of polling places, resulting in disproportionately long lines in cities where democrats live
- Aren't rural people more republican leaning?
  
  Often times yes, but they are in gerrymandered districts with adequate polling locations, plus they love to go out and vote for "their guy"
  
  Aren’t rural people more republican leaning?
  In some places only slightly. Like 55/45. So it would still affect Democrats.
  Edit: I mention this because a lot of folks tend to assume rural areas are almost exclusively Republican and that's very far from the truth even in super red states.

This is it folks. If he is able to transform our election system with his own two hands, we've had our last fair election, I guarantee it. Fraud will be baked in, circumventing any design elements that are ostensibly there to guard against it.
This is the scariest thing I've read since the election.
- I'm expecting a third term now with 110% of the vote. NK style.
  
  Like that scene at the end of The Dictator, when he finally holds election.
  There are two vote boxes and all the citizens are queuing in front of the box that will vote for his opposition. A tank drives up next to that queue, and everyone leaves the opposition queue, rushing over to join the queue to vote for the dictator.
  
  Nah, we are about to have elections like the US used to in the 1900s, filled with political shenanigans. Its bad, but like... that has been how elections have always been run.
  Not exactly russia or north korea, but like half way there.
  Edit: Basically, instead of 51% of the vote, you need 55% or maybe even more, because some of the votes will get thrown out for made up reasons. Slightly marked off center of the bubble, invalid. Didn't fill the bubble completely, invalid. And they only scrutinize votes for the opposition, and approve the votes for their candidates even if there are the same errors in the marking of the ballot.
- They weren't quiet about this being the last fair election we would have. I'm also not convinced it was actually a fair election.
  But whatever...too late to bitch about the fascists now.
- Well, to be fair, elections have always been biased with shit like this.
  We never really had a 10/10 fair election, there has always been biases in favor of status quo / regressivism. It always took more than 51% of votes for the less regressive party to win. We're just regressing back to stupid election shenanigans like those 2000 florida ballots designed to confuse everyone. Shenanigans that had always existed, but we evolved out of, but now we are going through a period of regression, as the country has done many many times before.

Goodbye democracy. We barely knew thee ...
- Yeah, clearly opening the door to discuss further changes to the election process. It's dying, and he doesn't want more people voting, he wants less, if at all
  
  Real "stop testing" energy here.
  If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any
  "If we just stop voting, we'd have very few votes against me"

But.. it's the states that run elections, not the federal government. This doesn't make any sense.
- Don’t worry, I’m sure all the small government conservatives will stop this!
- scotus would have to literally rewrite the constitution for the feds to have that much control over states' elections.
  owait.
  
  I've forgotten what ratio of the house and Senate need to approve amendments. I'm sure they haven't tho, and will pack them both with the number they need.
- Yeah that's only when it's Democrats trying to change things.
- Um, states run elections, federal laws can regulate them. That has always been the case.
  Southern states used to require the federal governments permission to change their states election laws. That was actually good that federal governments can somewhat regulate state elections, so southern states cant make racist election laws. Then supreme court stuck down that part of the Voting Right Act. southern states then immediately passed Voter ID laws to restrict minority voting.
  Now the funny thing is, because now that the federal government is under a republican trifecta, they are now gonna do a uno reverse and regulate blue states like we used to regulate southern states.

And you'll have to wait 10 hours to vote on a workday because they've limited voting locations to one every million people - like they already do in Georgia.
- lmao, democracy tm

"mandating paper ballots... while eliminating mail-in voting."
Does he not know mail in ballots are paper ballots? 🤔
- The point is to eliminate voting options, the "justifications" are made up. Anything that moves closer to "not being able to vote" is the goal.
  
  Paper ballots are also easier to falsify, with all the videos of box stuffing in corrupt countries.
  That said, Canada uses paper ballots and hand counting, and I'm not aware of any accusations of election fraud related to that ever happening.

"We're gonna do things that have been really needed for a long time," he said. "And we are gonna look at elections. We want to have paper ballots, one day voting, voter ID, and proof of citizenship."
This should come with a national day off for voting, and mandatory voting requirement.
- and voting location mandates per capita.

Party that loves the troops want to eliminate way the troops vote.

- 'Bbbut gaza...' great job guys.

fuck that, mail in voting has done so much good and it's a prime step in stopping all this. if we had national mail in voting things would get better fast so no wonder they don't want it.
what would this mean for states that already do this
- I think we all know what the party of small government and states rights thinks of states doing things they don’t agree with.
- A big part of why he lost in ~~2016~~ 2020 was greatly expanded mail in voting. No surprise he wants to ban it.
  
  Did you typo? You mean 2020 right?

This motherfucker better be in a Popemobile 24/7. I got a bad feeling about this guy's future existence.
- Even one of his own tried to kill him
  
  Weren't they both registered Republicans?
- Yeah but then we get Incel-In-Chief JD Vance as president which is honestly MUCH scarier.
  
  Just means they're next in line.

Something something constitution
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/
What was that about States rights?
Oh, yeah, they only matter when they do what you want.
- Oregon has entirely mail-in voting, since the 1990s. Good luck getting us to give it up.
  
  I mean, with this partisan supreme court, we can expect the electoral votes for non-complying states to get thrown out via court order. Who knows 🤷‍♂️
- but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations
  they are gonna chose to highlight this part then ignore the rest
- Yeah, but primaries aren't controlled by the states.
  Which is why waaay back in 2024, the DNC and Biden were able to take all of NH primary delegates away...
  
  That's not voting, though. That's what the party decides.
  But, yeah, the DNC highjacked the ability of people to choose the nominee for their party. Again.

Still following putin I see. Wait until he tries to change Presidential term limits.

Wouldn’t he basically need a constitutional amendment to do this. Which would be almost impossible these days.
- Hard to say. voting is up to states for methodology but like we did have restrictions on state due to discrimation till recently that would not allow them to change their rules or purge voters like they do again nowadays.
  
  till
- No. Federal government could always regulate elections. We used to require southern states to get federal governments permission before they can change their state election laws, so that they cant make racist election laws, but then the supreme court struck down that part of the Voting Right Act, then southern states immediately enacted Voter ID Laws.
  Now that republicans have a trifecta in federal government, they are doing an uno reverse to regulate blue states like we used to regulate southern states.
  
  The VRA was an extension of the fourteenth amendment. And the federal government never said the racist states had to do X. They said the states had to submit changes to the federal government to make sure they weren't racist and thus unconstitutional.
  Trump's stuff doesn't have any of that grounding.
- Yup. He can try for a reverse VRA but it's going to be a pretty big fight if he does.
- how hard can it be when you hold the Senate, Congress, and the supreme court?

Too bad for him the constitution clearly states "the states shall decide" - which is why we have the hodgepodge patchwork bullshit we have now. So he may want to change it, but unless he actually does light the Constitution on fire, this is unlikely to go anywhere.
- omm... the Republicans have the supreme court and are in the process of lighting the constitution on fire as we speak?
  
  The constitution doesn't protect the people from the government. The constitution protects a government from the people.
  When the government lights the constitution on fire, "We The People" are no longer restrained by its restrictions. We are free to establish a new constitution, with blackjack and hookers, and burn down the government established by the old, flaming constitution.

If he really wants to standardize voting at the national level, I think this might actually backfire on the GOP in the long run. Mail-in voting and early voting is extremely popular across the political spectrum, while lazy ignorant old people, the life blood of the GOP for over fifty years, often don't carry ID or even know where theirs is.
- Shutting down polling stations in democratic areas has been part of the disenfranchisement strategy to-date. I’m sure this policy is one step of a few to try and permanently take power…
  
  '"f I win, you'll never have to vote again!"
  -shitler
- while lazy ignorant old people
  Ignorant, yes, by definition. But voter turnout among registered Republicans has historically been pretty high - often higher than Democrats. There's a few breakdowns of this but I found this older analysis quite interesting: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/
  And there's evidence that higher turnout benefited Republicans this year: https://apnews.com/article/election-2024-voter-turnout-republicans-trump-harris-7ef18c115c8e1e76210820e0146bc3a5

cuts out 80% of the elderly vote in one swift motion
cuts out unprepared idiots who don't know any better before they leave their house
There goes his voters.

But... I thought he said we wouldn't have to vote ever again?
- It's because you'll be standing in line waiting to vote instead.
- He also said we'd never hear from him again if he lost in 2020.

Anyone else get those Republican mailers that said to be sure to get your mail-in ballot early? (I mean, like, a bunch of them.)

Jesus fuck. If this asshole gets rid of mail-in voting in Colorado...our voting system here is FANTASTIC.
The qons ruin every thing. They plan on making everyone miserable and breaking everything.

Suck my dick.
- He's already sucking putin's

I am forced to file taxes every year and being a US citizen fucks my ability to invest in the retirement plans here because they all end up being PFICs which the IRS heavily penalizes. Fuck you, you're not taking my rights away. Forcing me to travel to not only the US, but to the state where I'm registered is not OK as that is thousands of dollars and days to accomplish.

Maybe it's just me, but it feels like a bad idea to do something that disenfranchises people at the moment.
- No, no, by all means push more people to their breaking point. They've long done the "fuck around" part and I would love to be around to witness the "and find out" part.
- Except that some people walk around with a security detail that everyone else paid for.
- Yeah it’s pretty funny cause these ghouls know only how to do one thing.
  I feel like the next four years will have the energy of:
  “The austerity will continue until moral and ceo shootings improve”.
  Good luck with that.

Eliminate the Electoral College. None of this other crap.
- Paper ballots are good
  
  Who doesn't have paper ballots? The states that use a touch screen (e.g. Dominion) still has paper ballots. You just make your choices on the screen and print the ballot. You check that everything is accurate and insert the paper ballot in the counting machine.

In elections where there needs to be a single winner so proportional representation does not work, how about this (already works in several EU countries):
Round 1: Anyone can participate if they have enough signatures. If anyone gets the majority vote, they automatically win and there is no round 2.
Round 2, 1 or 2 weeks later: Top 2 candidates from Round 1. No votes are carried over. Popular vote wins.
- RCV doesn't need 2 rounds for this. Neither does approval voting.
  This is not a problem with voting that needs new ideas to address.

Lmao good luck with that constitutional amendment, Donnie.
This half-baked nonsense is dead at conception because once again Republicans prove they don't understand government.
- It's a shame that, despite not understanding government, they're about to have unfettered control of it.
  
  The saving grace is that our federal government relies HEAVILY on state workers and agencies.
  A lot of states can simply say no, or "yeah, we'll get around to it."

So tell me why Dems are playing the same game like one hand tied behind their back? Why don't they do the same shit when they're in power?
- Well the election laws primarily come from the election clause of the constitution. So that couldn't be changed without an amendment requiring a super majority, which neither party will get. What I assume he is trying to do though, is while having state leaders being majority Republican, have the states update their election laws, because that's who controls the elections. (Unless the supreme Court blocks it, as we saw with Colorado). Also held by the Republicans.
  I assume his attempts are to lock all the states currently red, red. Is it possible, doubtful. As states also may require super majoritys to update their election processes, but that may vary drastically by state. Shit one state was discussing getting rid of popular vote all together and just allowing their representatives to vote leading up to the election.
  The country we knew as the U.S. is broken. Only threads to hold it together now
- Conservatives didn't start it now, it's a long game they're playing for decades, it just became obvious now when it's in final stage.
  Their goal always was to break checks and balances for them but only for them, and they are able to because they broke enough already. Id Dems will try to do a fraction of what Cons are doing, they will be politically and judicially murdered, partially because of that, and partially because breaking shit is easy and fixing it requires abiding by the letter of law, and that's hard when the law was deliberately destroyed
- Because they don't want to. The corporate Democrats work for their sponsors, not the people. The few genuine progressives are kept around mainly for show.
- It's partly because Democrats often tend towards being honest and good people that actually care about good governance.
  The qons don't and they can just hold things hostage - they basically grab all kinds of things (like balancing budgets) and hold a gun to its head, knowing their dumbass supporters are too stupid to realize that government does do good things - too many of the idiots in the base buy into a whole lot of Libertarian-style anarchy when it comes to "limited government".
- Because Democrats love losing. They use that as an excuse to blast their constituents with texts on how to donate. They did that when Roe was overturned and a few days after Kamala lost. As another commenter pointed out, they're beholden to their sponsors and their sponsors want a return on investment.

I thought Putin's Sock Puppet and his neo-Nazi supporters want to increase state rights. Getting rid of the Electoral College should be the first step.
- Not those states rights.

So not cancelling voting just yet.
- Testing the waters.
  !Resist@fedia.io
- If they could, one of the 40+ previous presidents would've already done so. They can rig it to make thing more biased, but cant completely cancel elections. That is, unless they do a civil war to purge every remnant of the opposition.
  
  I mean yes, good point, we've had rough times before. But this also sounds like a setup for a "hold my beer" meme.

Yeah right. ConOLD has no intention of allowing more elections.
- Testing, testing...