Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (88) |
Author: Umm 🐝  😊 😞
Number: of 84358 
Subject: Re: NeoCons, "Israel!" and Republicans
Date: 03/30/26 3:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 19
"I am pretty sure that Dope's answer would depend upon who those people are likely voting for."

Put another way.....

One of the biggest security threats to voting is the distributed nature of voting locations. Even a small rural state has dozens of voting locations throughout the state. Medium sized urban states have hundreds of places to vote throughout the state, and I am too lazy to check, but I wouldn't be surprised if a large, populous state like California has well over a thousand different voting locations throughout the state.

Each of those locations require some duplicative effort and having so many are a logistical nightmare which creates more opportunities for a security breakdown.

It would be much, much easier to maintain election security if there were fewer voting locations.

So if there was a proposal to improve election security to limit voting locations within the state. Let's say each state is only allowed to have 5 voting locations throughout the state. These locations would be within the 5 biggest population centers throughout the state. I mean everyone within the state is still allowed to vote, but they have to drive to one of the 5 biggest population centers within the state and vote there.

It would make keeping the elections secure much easier.

Obviously it would make it tougher for lots of people to vote. Especially for those who did not live near one of those 5 biggest population centers. If a person lived in rural Texas and had to drive a few hours to Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio, park, wait in long lines, vote, then drive a few hours home, a lot less rural people would be voting. But..... Election security would be much higher.

I don't think Dope would support those policies even though they make elections more secure. It is because it requires his "tribe" to jump through a lot more hoops in order to vote, so he doesn't want to make elections more secure that way. Requiring voters to have to show a very specific valid ID in order to vote places hoops to jump through for poor people, minorities, and women. Those are groups more closely associated with Dope's opponent's "tribe", so he has no problem putting extra hoops in front of them to have to jump through in order to vote.
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to Umm here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (88) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community