Pauli's Exclusion Principle says that two or more elections with same quantum number cannot be held in the same atom at the same time, hence there can be no election interference.

OoooooooooPpppppppppppSsssssssss - This should have been posted in the Physics section.

 

Robin Mitchell so here's my $.02. I also say this is totally political thread cuz when you think on it saying something like: _tampering happened and it matters_ is siding with Liberals and saying: __tampering didn't happen or it's not important_ is siding with conservatives! So no offense but I say this is political thread vry thinly guised in rhetorical clothing, Just sayin'!

Go back a few elections and the claim would be the exact opposite, which is an indication that the question is intrinsically apolitical.

Robin is asking a question that is perfectly separable from the politics of the day. Just move the context some place else.

Country Apple copied election system used in the United States. Country Peach wants to interfer with the Apply election to try and sway the vote. But how might they do this? At the end of the day, individual people go into a booth and vote, no one sits in the booth and forces their hand.

If someone can't answer that question without bringing in Republicans and Democrats or Russia or Trump or Hillary, then the problem isn't that the question is political, it's that someone can't separate their own politics from anything and they shouldn't be posting in this thread.

Asking how one country can attempt to manipulate another country's election process, particularly if it's as a preface to then exploring how it might be mitigate, is completely reasonable. But if people insist on injecting their political views, then they will doom the thread (or perhaps get themselves locked out of it).

 

How do you stop the electronic sludge as a general problem?
It's very easy to create 'news' content from existing sources. Just have a computer scrap online sources, add a computer voice and boom!, you have a new 'news' channel for money/views now or possible election interference later.
https://socialblade.com/youtube/channel/UCfN_ytFCqiaOzkiZsVJIHbw

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfN_ytFCqiaOzkiZsVJIHbw
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzJlNC-Rkjd4C0g5SJ9mVwA/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRBfPVHhyLg3MgTukI4wYPA

 

Go back a few elections and the claim would be the exact opposite

Wbahn I agree that direction (_polarity_) changes with time and is sometimes just _neutral_ (_crossing zero_)! But I say arithmetic mean isn't applicable here for same reason it doesn't apply to understanding energy transmitted as symmetrical waveform! So arithmetic mean equaling zero is totally irrelevant in cases of finite, non-zero frequency (like political trends) cuz instantaneous effects are still totally relevant!

Wbahn so anyhow if u think I'm going too far with analogy fair enough! So all I can say is based on what's been a persistent major topic in news for like two years there's no way subject of thread is non-political!

So if ppl in charge of content on here want or don't object to political discussion that's totally their call! So I'm just saying plz let's call it by its proper name instead of rationalizing!

If someone can't answer that question without bringing in Republicans and Democrats or Russia or Trump or Hillary, then the problem isn't that the question is political, it's that someone can't separate their own politics from anything and they shouldn't be posting in this thread.

Wbahn Sry but IMO it's not ppl _not being able to separate their biases_ it's just people assuming discussion of prominent current affairs and media item is forthright instead scrubbed and neutered!

 

Pauli's Exclusion Principle says that two or more elections with same quantum number cannot be held in the same atom at the same time, hence there can be no election interference.

Glen Holland Sry but that's a glaring misstatement of the Pauli exclusion principle!
Sry if u were just joking! It's like HP's always saying abt me, sense of humor isn't my _strong suit_

 

It's like HP's always saying abt me, sense of humor isn't my _strong suit_

Yeah? Well.. Attentive reading might help.

elections

Pronounced "i-ˈlek-shəns", Aleph(0)

So if ppl in charge of content on here want or don't object to political discussion that's totally their call! So I'm just saying plz let's call it by its proper name instead of rationalizing!

Electoral engineering?

Thanks!

 

The point is not how much the Russian's interfered with the election, it's that they tried to influence our vote.
Even if they only affected one vote, that's one vote too many.

 

The point is not how much the Russian's interfered with the election, it's that they tried to influence our vote.
Even if they only affected one vote, that's one vote too many.

and: The point is not how much the Mexicans's interfered with the US election, it's that they tried to influence our vote.

http://www.dw.com/en/mexicos-ex-president-warns-us-voters-against-trump-as-president/a-19208541
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ement-gets-boost-from-mexico-s-efforts-in-u-s

 

and: The point is not how much the Mexicans's interfered with the US election, it's that they tried to influence our vote.

Dang it. Resistance is futile.

and: The point is not how much the Republicans interfered with the US election, it's that they tried to influence our vote.

 

The list of ways to sway elections will ALWAYS be longer than the list of laws to prevent that. It’s limited only by human imagination and ingenuity. I grew up near Chicago, and so I’ve seen this up close. Dead people voting, non-citizens, multiple votes cast, ballot boxes stuffed or lost, we see it all.

The list of laws that are enforced and effective is even shorter. Like the rest of civil society, the system still works reasonably well as long as most people are basically good. Nothing works if that fails to be true.

It’s a mess, but this is the price that democracies pay for trying to gauge the will of the people.

 

It’s a mess, but this is the price that democracies pay for trying to gauge the will of the people.

What Democracy? If I wanted to live in a democracy I would move to Canada.

If people want it, they should vote to strike it from the Constitution. With as many people moving to Utah it won't be long before Democrats will own our Electoral Votes as well.

But we might also turn into a swing state, which would bring in more money. Hmm?

kv

 

and: The point is not how much the Mexicans's interfered with the US election, it's that they tried to influence our vote.

http://www.dw.com/en/mexicos-ex-president-warns-us-voters-against-trump-as-president/a-19208541
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ement-gets-boost-from-mexico-s-efforts-in-u-s

I agree.
That's also inappropriate.

 

Dang it. Resistance is futile.

and: The point is not how much the Republicans interfered with the US election, it's that they tried to influence our vote.

Yeah, that really pisses me off.

 

I agree.
That's also inappropriate.

That's also typical of US elections in general. https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...erfered-in-a-us-electionto-reelect-fdr-214634

BSC also tried to shape public opinion by feeding a stream of true, partially true and completely fabricated stories to sympathetic reporters and columnists. Some—like Edgar Ansel Mowrer of the Chicago Daily News and Ulric Bell of the Louisville Courier-Journal—worked directly with British intelligence officers, but most of the journalists who cooperated with BSC did so through American intermediaries. Among them was Walter Winchell, one of the most widely read columnists of the time, who routinely ran BSC items supplied by an intermediary.

Using undercover agents, the BSC conducted a yearlong investigation of a scheme by congressional staff to insert pro-Nazi propaganda into the Congressional Record and to use congressional franking privileges to distribute it. The BSC then coordinated media exposés of the franking scandal and supplied federal prosecutors with information on the pro-Nazi plot, resulting in several convictions.

Elsewhere in Washington, the BSC targeted the embassy used by the Vichy French, illegally tapping its phones, burglarizing embassy property and deploying a female operative to seduce Vichy officials. That intel was then used as the basis for a series of newspaper articles revealing Vichy diplomats’ efforts to help Nazi Germany—stories that the BSC then arranged to be printed under the byline of an American journalist. The resulting public furor severely curtailed the Vichy government’s American activities.

I could name Israel, China, the EU and most of the OPEC countries in the middle east as having some influence in our elections. The basic truth is this hubbub is not about how X nation interfered, it's about the fact X candidate won the election and the power struggle that started after that event.

 

What Democracy?

I meant democracy with a small D, meaning a system where the people get to vote and their choices matter.

 

I meant democracy with a small D, meaning a system where the people get to vote and their choices matter.

I was confused because I thought in an earlier # post you sited the difference. If you weren't the one, whoever did site what this country is founded on, I say Thank you.

I tend to forget and enjoy being reminded this is a Republic.

kv

 

I was confused because I thought in an earlier # post you sited the difference. If you weren't the one, whoever did site that what this country is founded on, I have to say Thank you,
because I tend to forget and enjoy being reminded, damn straight, this is a Republic.

kv

The U.S. is, indeed, NOT a democracy. The people that set it up believed that a democracy was too easily bent to the cause of tyranny in time. So they set up a Constitutional Representative Republic with certain democratic institutions. None-the-less, in many contexts the difference between a representative republic and a democracy are immaterial to the discussion (for instance, why the U.S. is always considered one of the "Western Democracies", also know as a "liberal democracy"). The adherence to certain traits is what gets a system of government classified as a "liberal democracy" and, odd as it may sound, being a democracy is not one of them. The U.K., which is a Constitutional Monarchy, is classified as a liberal democracy. Many such classified countries have parliamentary systems of government. In fact, there aren't any countries that practice direct democracy today and there have been very few historically. Aside from the "tyranny of the majority" dooming many to short lifespans, the logistics of governance in such a way limits the size of the population that can do so to a pretty small number.

Switzerland has direct democracy at lower levels and probably the strongest tenets of democracy at the national level of any nation today. Interestingly, it's my understanding that when the Swiss made significant changes to their system a bit over a century ago they patterned the changes after the U.S. congressional system and did so for the very same reasons which was to temper the dangers inherent in a direct democracy.

The U.S. still has regions, usually town-level in New England, that practice direct democracy for local affairs.

 

The U.S. is, indeed, NOT a democracy. The people that set it up believed that a democracy was too easily bent to the cause of tyranny in time. So they set up a Constitutional Representative Republic with certain democratic institutions. None-the-less, in many contexts the difference between a representative republic and a democracy are immaterial to the discussion (for instance, why the U.S. is always considered one of the "Western Democracies", also know as a "liberal democracy"). The adherence to certain traits is what gets a system of government classified as a "liberal democracy" and, odd as it may sound, being a democracy is not one of them. The U.K., which is a Constitutional Monarchy, is classified as a liberal democracy. Many such classified countries have parliamentary systems of government. In fact, there aren't any countries that practice direct democracy today and there have been very few historically. Aside from the "tyranny of the majority" dooming many to short lifespans, the logistics of governance in such a way limits the size of the population that can do so to a pretty small number.

Switzerland has direct democracy at lower levels and probably the strongest tenets of democracy at the national level of any nation today. Interestingly, it's my understanding that when the Swiss made significant changes to their system a bit over a century ago they patterned the changes after the U.S. congressional system and did so for the very same reasons which was to temper the dangers inherent in a direct democracy.

The U.S. still has regions, usually town-level in New England, that practice direct democracy for local affairs.

California and Arizona are two states that have an initiative process where the voters can directly enact or repeal laws. Proposition 13 (limits the rate of increase of real estate taxes) is one of the most prominent use of the initiative process. The politicians hate it, but in fact, California's economy is largely the result of Prop. 13.

 

California and Arizona are two states that have an initiative process where the voters can directly enact or repeal laws. Proposition 13 (limits the rate of increase of real estate taxes) is one of the most prominent use of the initiative process. The politicians hate it, but in fact, California's economy is largely the result of Prop. 13.

About half the states have some version of the initiative and/or referendum process. However, while these add an aspect of direct democracy, they are an adjunct to the normal way in which political affairs are conducted and not the norm.

 

This thread is re election interference.

How about policy interference?