Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   ryan (ryan@bemrose.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:09 JST ryan
   ICE, Ukraine, Epstein... All bread and circuses. The only political issue that matters is securing elections.
   
   Without that, the public vote is compromised, and cannot be trusted on any issue. Both parties will continue to do whatever the people in power want: Filter tax money through massive fraud machines; Pass draconian laws that infringe rights and further tyranny. They will claim that they have a mandate to do so because without trustworthy elections, nobody will be able to prove otherwise.
   
   And the public vote that should be distrusted most of all is when they argue that the public doesn't want secure elections.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:18:57 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Matt Hamilton

     So in your opinion, reversing all those things will make the ballot useful and not the slaves suggestion box?

     I dunno. If you read The Dictator's Handbook (2011 Mesquita, Smith), they argue reducing the selectorate is never beneficial; that systems become more autocratic the more you limit the franchise.

     Even in Heinlein's Starship Troopers, the franchise is limited to those who serve in the military, but the overarching system is autocratic. But it also shows fascism is a perfect valid system if you enemy are literally bugs.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:18:58 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     @ryan Direct representation was a mistake. Allowing women to vote was a mistake. Allowing negros to vote was a mistake. Allowing non-landowners to vote was a mistake. Allowing Jews to import infinity brownoids (juicing census numbers) for an increase in proportional representation was a mistake.

     Reversing ALL of these things is THE solution.

     However NONE of that can be accomplished through the existing parasitized system.

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:18:59 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     @ryan > I came in hoping someone might propose something I hadn't seen

     Ha, that's precisely why I replied to the post; I wanted that from YOU.

     With the core complaint (elections are not "secure" therefore they lack legitimacy) being vague, it's impossible to provide a solution.

     But as you noted, even if the problem was defined, the point I raised earlier (the inability to implement mitigations without simultaneously centralizing power) makes the issue intractable if not impossible to solve.

   • Embed this notice
     ryan (ryan@bemrose.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:18:59 JST ryan

     in reply to

     • Matt Hamilton
     @eriner The last option - and the one which seems at the moment most palatable to me is "kick the can down the road".
     
     It's not a solution per se, but I figure I've got maybe 25 more years left in this world. If the inevitable societal collapse can just wait until 2050, then it all becomes someone else's problem. Selfish, sure, but it's an effective cop-out.
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:01 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     @ryan > If you want to engage and don't think I've provided enough information, feel free to ask for clarification

     Is that not what you interpret this thread to be?

     > before whipping out the gotchas and accusations

     It wasn't a gotcha; I thought you had already thought the issue through and I was attempting to cut to the chase.

     I haven't accused you of anything except not answering the question, which you still haven't done.

     Nothing of what I've said is disparaging or in bad faith.

   • Embed this notice
     ryan (ryan@bemrose.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:01 JST ryan

     in reply to

     • Matt Hamilton
     @eriner
     
     > I thought you had already thought the issue through
     
     I have not. At least not so far as a solution. I'm uncomfortable with the "we have to shoot our way out of this" solution, but that continues to be the only one that I see which doesn't involve the expansion of federal power - a solution I like even less, because of its limitless capacity for unintended side effects. The only other option I see at this point is a national divorce, or otherwise an end to the American experiment, which I also don't like.
     
     Like I said, it's a fair criticism that I came without a solution. I guess I came in hoping someone might propose something I hadn't seen. Barring that, you may simply accuse me of trying to "raise awareness".
     
     My original post came in response to seeing yet another thread about the political theater of the moment, and my thinking was merely that the specifics of what the government is doing with its illegitimate power is far less important than trying to address the fact that the power is illegitimate.
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:04 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     @ryan > I was prioritizing a problem without offering any particular plan to fix it

     That was my point.

     You're making vague complaints about "the only political issue that matters" without even defining the terms of your complaint.

     You still haven't answered THE question, what does "securing elections" mean?

     My point about nationalized elections was merely to preempt "We just need to change X" because whatever you may say, (counties in) California don't care.

   • Embed this notice
     ryan (ryan@bemrose.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:04 JST ryan

     in reply to

     • Matt Hamilton
     While it's true I'm on Pleroma, which affords more than 500 characters, it still doesn't provide enough to make every post a scientifically rigorous treatise, nor did I realize that I was expected to do so. The parts of the fedi that I federate with sport a higher-than-twitter average IQ, but I don't think even they demand that from every opening post.
     
     If you want to engage and don't think I've provided enough information, feel free to ask for clarification before whipping out the gotchas and accusations. If I want to be accused of bad faith in every reply, I'll follow Maggos again.
     
     For all you know, my proposed solution might have been "We need to jettison California and have a stronger country without them".
     
     (Actually, that's unlikely. I prefer not to invoke the name of the Statist God "We", as it too often leads to solutions with high popular appeal and almost no chance of working)
   • Embed this notice
     ryan (ryan@bemrose.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:05 JST ryan

     in reply to

     • Matt Hamilton
     @eriner As to the actual question of how to secure elections, the answer is complicated and nuanced, and I don't have all of the answers.
     
     As a rule, I don't tend to favor "nationalization" of anything, which is why I would want to review the details before pledging "support" of such a thing. In general, I think local control - as local as possible right down to the individual where feasible - produces the best outcome.
     
     But there are other solutions that haven't been tried at a national level, such as decertification of elections that aren't secure, or stripping representation from jurisdictions with incompatible laws.
   • Embed this notice
     ryan (ryan@bemrose.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:06 JST ryan

     in reply to

     • Matt Hamilton
     @eriner I was prioritizing a problem without offering any particular plan to fix it. I didn't provide details, because I wasn't proposing a solution. You may fairly criticize me for that, but not for failing to give details of something I didn't suggest.
     
     Of course you assumed a solution, then you asked if I "support" your given solution. I'm unable to answer that without either more detail, or some kind of extrasensory mind-reading ability.
   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:07 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     @ryan > woefully short

     Funny, because that's your problem: "The only political issue that matters is securing elections".

     What does that even mean?

     And how are you going to do that if elections aren't nationalized?

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:08 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     @ryan Do you support nationalizing elections?

   • Embed this notice
     ryan (ryan@bemrose.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:19:08 JST ryan

     in reply to

     • Matt Hamilton
     @eriner The devil, as always, is in the details, and your two-word hypothetical proposal is woefully short on those. What are you getting at here?
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:50:57 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Matt Hamilton
     • Killer*Mule
     meh. I think Heinlein is overrated. The book was boring as fuck. The movie honestly does a much better job at even the political points than that terrible book. _Strange in a Strange Land_ is equally terrible, and shows Heinlein was probably a sexpest like the current Hollywood elites.
     
     > Got it, everyone in the world can now vote in American elections for every county, state, and federal elections; let us expand the franchise worldwide.
     
     Well the book doesn't make that ridiculous argument. The selectorate has to be for that particular government and their well defined region of influence. I personally don't think the vote is very effective to begin with, but I do think the book makes a good point about those affected by a leader should participate in selecting said leader and more participants tends to prevent more autocratic leadership (although not always).
     
     You mentioned the female vote. What's interesting is it originally just gave a family two votes. In a way it lent more strength to the family .. and if a family was divided, the vote of that family would just cancel itself out. It's a different situation where that vote is more individual now.
   • Embed this notice
     Killer*Mule (killer_mule@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:50:58 JST Killer*Mule

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Matt Hamilton

     @eriner The book was very good. The movie, comedy. @djsumdog @ryan

   • Embed this notice
     Matt Hamilton (eriner@noauthority.social)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Feb-2026 13:50:59 JST Matt Hamilton

     in reply to

     • djsumdog

     @djsumdog @ryan

     > So in your opinion, reversing all those things will make the ballot useful and not the slaves suggestion box?

     What was unclear?

     > systems become more autocratic the more you limit the franchise

     Got it, everyone in the world can now vote in American elections for every county, state, and federal elections; let us expand the franchise worldwide.

     > Starship Troopers

     Never seen it.