Hypothetical - Remote Voting
-
Absolutely not. There is already enough cheating going on. Not to mention all the illegals who would vote. Internet will always be hacked.
Again, I'm saying if it was guaranteed none of that was going to happen.
Not sure if you're just doing a usual troll post or what, but I covered all that laying out my hypothetical
Again, I'm saying if it was guaranteed none of that was going to happen.
Not sure if you're just doing a usual troll post or what, but I covered all that laying out my hypothetical
I don't think he's trolling.. It is a legitimate concern... I would be in favor as long it is a bipartisan effort by both Dems and Repubs that had a selected joint panel to oversee the preceedings
Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~ -
If woodpeckers had space helmets, they could fly to the moon?
No, because it is impossible to make it secure like it would need to be.
It's the old "if pigs had giant wings they could fly" nonsense.
-
Absolutely not. There is already enough cheating going on. Not to mention all the illegals who would vote. Internet will always be hacked.
Again, I'm saying if it was guaranteed none of that was going to happen.
Not sure if you're just doing a usual troll post or what, but I covered all that laying out my hypothetical
Again, I'm saying if it was guaranteed none of that was going to happen.
Not sure if you're just doing a usual troll post or what, but I covered all that laying out my hypothetical
How the hell are you going to '100 percent guarantee' anything?
-
Again, I'm saying if it was guaranteed none of that was going to happen.
Not sure if you're just doing a usual troll post or what, but I covered all that laying out my hypothetical
I don't think he's trolling.. It is a legitimate concern... I would be in favor as long it is a bipartisan effort by both Dems and Repubs that had a selected joint panel to oversee the preceedings
I don't think he's trolling.. It is a legitimate concern... I would be in favor as long it is a bipartisan effort by both Dems and Repubs that had a selected joint panel to oversee the preceedings
If woodpeckers had space helmets, they could fly to the moon?
No, because it is impossible to make it secure like it would need to be.
It's the old "if pigs had giant wings they could fly" nonsense.
How the hell are you going to '100 percent guarantee' anything?
Guys, again, it's a hypothetical.
There's no point in convincing you that it maybe could be considering your current beliefs about our election prices.
So this is a hypothetical. You're assuming it's all legit. In that case, would you be ok with it?
-
I don't think he's trolling.. It is a legitimate concern... I would be in favor as long it is a bipartisan effort by both Dems and Repubs that had a selected joint panel to oversee the preceedings
If woodpeckers had space helmets, they could fly to the moon?
No, because it is impossible to make it secure like it would need to be.
It's the old "if pigs had giant wings they could fly" nonsense.
How the hell are you going to '100 percent guarantee' anything?
Guys, again, it's a hypothetical.
There's no point in convincing you that it maybe could be considering your current beliefs about our election prices.
So this is a hypothetical. You're assuming it's all legit. In that case, would you be ok with it?
Guys, again, it's a hypothetical.
There's no point in convincing you that it maybe could be considering your current beliefs about our election prices.
So this is a hypothetical. You're assuming it's all legit. In that case, would you be ok with it?
We get that... I just don't think it's feasible considering the political climate these days... They just can't get along on either side...
Nickers...."There are no old running QB's in the NFL "~Sam Rutigliano~ -
The hypothetical is impossible. That makes it an exercise in a waste of time.
It also seems to be a ploy to get into 100% emoting on an issue.
-
Guys, again, it's a hypothetical.
There's no point in convincing you that it maybe could be considering your current beliefs about our election prices.
So this is a hypothetical. You're assuming it's all legit. In that case, would you be ok with it?
We get that... I just don't think it's feasible considering the political climate these days... They just can't get along on either side...
We get that... I just don't think it's feasible considering the political climate these days... They just can't get along on either side...
The hypothetical is impossible. That makes it an exercise in a waste of time.
It also seems to be a ploy to get into 100% emoting on an issue.
I don't get why you two are making this so difficult. In this scenario there's no fraud. That's how the hypothetical works
-
In this hypothetical question we are somehow rock solid convinced that stuff like that won’t happen. I agree though, the process of convincing us that it’s 100% legitimate would be the most difficult part of it.
I would begrudgingly be a yes on it. My thinking is that it would be beneficial to certain segments of our society, namely the elderly who don’t always get around so well, and the poor, who also don’t get around so well.
There would be a part of me that would lament the loss of yet another thing that we used to do in person that we no longer have to do in person. I’m a fan of actual human interaction and l think we need more opportunities for that, not less. I worry that all this online stuff contributes to people feeling disengaged from one another, and something like voting is the type of thing important enough to experience first hand.
In the world of "human interaction we need to keep" I don't think waiting in line for hours to vote is super high on that list for me.
In the world of "human interaction we need to keep" I don't think waiting in line for hours to vote is super high on that list for me.
Hours is excessive, l get that. I’m fortunate l have a less traveled polling place a block away, 15-20 min max to do the thing.
I did say l was a begrudging yes though. We are running thin on human interaction opportunities though. Heck, people don’t even have to grocery shop or go to church in person anymore.
-
We get that... I just don't think it's feasible considering the political climate these days... They just can't get along on either side...
The hypothetical is impossible. That makes it an exercise in a waste of time.
It also seems to be a ploy to get into 100% emoting on an issue.
I don't get why you two are making this so difficult. In this scenario there's no fraud. That's how the hypothetical works
I don't get why you two are making this so difficult. In this scenario there's no fraud. That's how the hypothetical works
Everyone knows how hypotheticals work, Woody, dammit. lol
But the answers are validly reflecting the impossibility of the scenario.
It isn't a very good hypothetical.
If someone asked "if you were lost in the wilderness with just a fixed blade knife, for three weeks, would you do well?"
is theoretically quite possible.
If someone asks "if there was a new stairway to the moon, and you could walk up it safely, with a space helmet, would you walk it?" would just be nonsense. A waste of time trying to take it legitimately.
Just my expert opinion, of course... lol
-
I don't get why you two are making this so difficult. In this scenario there's no fraud. That's how the hypothetical works
Everyone knows how hypotheticals work, Woody, dammit. lol
But the answers are validly reflecting the impossibility of the scenario.
It isn't a very good hypothetical.
If someone asked "if you were lost in the wilderness with just a fixed blade knife, for three weeks, would you do well?"
is theoretically quite possible.
If someone asks "if there was a new stairway to the moon, and you could walk up it safely, with a space helmet, would you walk it?" would just be nonsense. A waste of time trying to take it legitimately.
Just my expert opinion, of course... lol
Everyone knows how hypotheticals work, Woody, dammit. lol
But the answers are validly reflecting the impossibility of the scenario.
It isn't a very good hypothetical.
If someone asked "if you were lost in the wilderness with just a fixed blade knife, for three weeks, would you do well?"
is theoretically quite possible.
If someone asks "if there was a new stairway to the moon, and you could walk up it safely, with a space helmet, would you walk it?" would just be nonsense. A waste of time trying to take it legitimately.
Just my expert opinion, of course... lol
It's much more viable than you think. But, again, given your misinformed views of our current election process I'm not surprised you think that way.
So then, you're just going to refuse to answer at all? Well, alright
-
In the world of "human interaction we need to keep" I don't think waiting in line for hours to vote is super high on that list for me.
Hours is excessive, l get that. I’m fortunate l have a less traveled polling place a block away, 15-20 min max to do the thing.
I did say l was a begrudging yes though. We are running thin on human interaction opportunities though. Heck, people don’t even have to grocery shop or go to church in person anymore.
Hours is excessive, l get that. I’m fortunate l have a less traveled polling place a block away, 15-20 min max to do the thing.
I did say l was a begrudging yes though. We are running thin on human interaction opportunities though. Heck, people don’t even have to grocery shop or go to church in person anymore.
I think the lack of human interaction is overblown. Still plenty of places to get it, you just also have the ability to avoid it in more places now. If you want a bunch of human interaction it isn't hard to seek out.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
If we could vote remotely / virtually / over the Internet, and it was completely guaranteed to be 100% legitimate (no hacking, no double voting, only eligible voters, etc) would you support it?
If not, why?
If we could vote remotely / virtually / over the Internet, and it was completely guaranteed to be 100% legitimate (no hacking, no double voting, only eligible voters, etc) would you support it?
If not, why?
“About four-in-ten adults with lower incomes do not have home broadband services (43%) or a desktop or laptop computer (41%).”
“In 2024, approximately 15% of American adults did not have a cell phone at all.”
“In the United States, Pew Research Center data indicates that 7% of adults do not use the internet at all. “
You would be disenfranchising those you claim are disenfranchised by requiring photo ID.
-
If we could vote remotely / virtually / over the Internet, and it was completely guaranteed to be 100% legitimate (no hacking, no double voting, only eligible voters, etc) would you support it?
If not, why?
“About four-in-ten adults with lower incomes do not have home broadband services (43%) or a desktop or laptop computer (41%).”
“In 2024, approximately 15% of American adults did not have a cell phone at all.”
“In the United States, Pew Research Center data indicates that 7% of adults do not use the internet at all. “
You would be disenfranchising those you claim are disenfranchised by requiring photo ID.
“About four-in-ten adults with lower incomes do not have home broadband services (43%) or a desktop or laptop computer (41%).”
“In 2024, approximately 15% of American adults did not have a cell phone at all.”
“In the United States, Pew Research Center data indicates that 7% of adults do not use the internet at all. “
You would be disenfranchising those you claim are disenfranchised by requiring photo ID.
LOL.
-
If we could vote remotely / virtually / over the Internet, and it was completely guaranteed to be 100% legitimate (no hacking, no double voting, only eligible voters, etc) would you support it?
If not, why?
“About four-in-ten adults with lower incomes do not have home broadband services (43%) or a desktop or laptop computer (41%).”
“In 2024, approximately 15% of American adults did not have a cell phone at all.”
“In the United States, Pew Research Center data indicates that 7% of adults do not use the internet at all. “
You would be disenfranchising those you claim are disenfranchised by requiring photo ID.
“About four-in-ten adults with lower incomes do not have home broadband services (43%) or a desktop or laptop computer (41%).”
“In 2024, approximately 15% of American adults did not have a cell phone at all.”
“In the United States, Pew Research Center data indicates that 7% of adults do not use the internet at all. “
You would be disenfranchising those you claim are disenfranchised by requiring photo ID.
I never said it would be exclusively online. Polling centers would still exist. You'd also be able to vote early and online, at a library or something.
But yes, another attempt at trying to not answer the question for some reason
-
Again, it's strange to me so many of you are bending over backwards to avoid answering the question. Why is that?
-
“About four-in-ten adults with lower incomes do not have home broadband services (43%) or a desktop or laptop computer (41%).”
“In 2024, approximately 15% of American adults did not have a cell phone at all.”
“In the United States, Pew Research Center data indicates that 7% of adults do not use the internet at all. “
You would be disenfranchising those you claim are disenfranchised by requiring photo ID.
I never said it would be exclusively online. Polling centers would still exist. You'd also be able to vote early and online, at a library or something.
But yes, another attempt at trying to not answer the question for some reason
I never said it would be exclusively online. Polling centers would still exist. You'd also be able to vote early and online, at a library or something.
But yes, another attempt at trying to not answer the question for some reason
Just stop.
My answer was quite evident without having to say yes or no.It was “no” Woody.
-
I never said it would be exclusively online. Polling centers would still exist. You'd also be able to vote early and online, at a library or something.
But yes, another attempt at trying to not answer the question for some reason
Just stop.
My answer was quite evident without having to say yes or no.It was “no” Woody.
Just stop.
My answer was quite evident without having to say yes or no.It was “no” Woody.
And if you’re just looking for a yes or no answer and not allowing debate, just do a poll.
This wasn't a "debate" about the feasibility. Again, so many morons on here think the 2020 election was stolen and they believe ridiculous election lies. No point in "debating" any potential future viability in online voting.
So in a world where online voting is an option, along with in person, and it's perfectly legitimate, essentially only giving more folks access to voting, you would choose to not have it be an option?
Why?
-
Hours is excessive, l get that. I’m fortunate l have a less traveled polling place a block away, 15-20 min max to do the thing.
I did say l was a begrudging yes though. We are running thin on human interaction opportunities though. Heck, people don’t even have to grocery shop or go to church in person anymore.
I think the lack of human interaction is overblown. Still plenty of places to get it, you just also have the ability to avoid it in more places now. If you want a bunch of human interaction it isn't hard to seek out.
I think the lack of human interaction is overblown. Still plenty of places to get it, you just also have the ability to avoid it in more places now. If you want a bunch of human interaction it isn't hard to seek out.
I disagree, and it’s not me l’m worried about. It’s mostly younger folks and folks who, for whatever reason, fall into the “online is the new norm for social interaction” mindset. I see it as a divisive factor.
-
I think the lack of human interaction is overblown. Still plenty of places to get it, you just also have the ability to avoid it in more places now. If you want a bunch of human interaction it isn't hard to seek out.
I disagree, and it’s not me l’m worried about. It’s mostly younger folks and folks who, for whatever reason, fall into the “online is the new norm for social interaction” mindset. I see it as a divisive factor.
I disagree, and it’s not me l’m worried about. It’s mostly younger folks and folks who, for whatever reason, fall into the “online is the new norm for social interaction” mindset. I see it as a divisive factor.
We'll agree to disagree. I've seen the negative affects of the Internet and social media on the older generation more than younger, amplified from covid lockdowns.
The Internet can be a place of widespread, diverse human interaction, but only if you seek that out.
The convenience of not waiting in line to vote, or getting groceries delivered, ideally is to free up time for human pursuits, not just more time inside and online. I agree there are plenty of folks too terminally online.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login