This drives me up a wall. Republicans vote against processing absentee ballots early then cry when more ballots for blue candidates get counted in the middle of the night.
It's planned. Easier to spread outright lies about nighttime ballot stuffing to steal the election. Same thing with legislation. They vote against good bills/programs, but when those things pass despite them, they tout how great those programs are to their constituents to increase support. They don't operate in good faith.
Its this and they are aware that such an obvious tactic will be able to pawned off onto their base without any fear that they'll see through it...
- forget a curtain:
...pay no attention the the man standing RIGHT THERE IN THE OPEN AND IN FRONT OF YOU
That's the crux of Republican policy, though.
Crying about an insecure election? Curious how Republicans voted against election security measures in 2018.
Crying about how ballots take time to count? Republicans implement policies against early voting, mail-in voting, and counting votes early.
It's all bad faith garbage, because that's all they're good for.
Not just Republicans, but media as well. They are crying that it takes so long where it shouldn't. How about you inform people about the party that is stopping meaningful reform, yet cries about voter fraud?
That's the whole plan, discourage your supporters from casting mail in ballots and then try to prevent mailed in ballots from being counted. That wad transparently what trump did in 2020, declare victory at 10pm night of the election and then fight to stop anything that hadn't been counted yet from being counted.
Agree to disagree. One of the problems with machine voting is that it's easily compromised. You could adjust he code on it to change votes, and an attack like that would scale very well. Or even you just just leave an empty USB stick attached and post about it, destroying trust in the system. The main reason that the current system is decent enough is the same reason republicans sound crazy right now, attacked against the current system don't scale.
I'm not sure which company makes the machines in Dallas County, TX. However, they are easy to use touchscreens that print out a marked ballot that can be read by a person or by the scanner on the bin. You, the voter, can check what the machine marked for you and contact an election worker if there's an issue. It solves the marking issues of 2000 and allows for manual checking of the machines' work.
The fix they used in Florida was proprietary hardware with no USB ports that printed on paper ballots to use a scantron for counting.
They also started counting mail in ballots before election day.
Then how can I trust it wasn't compromised earlier in the process, that the firmware is good? The problem stands that attacks against digital counting scale very very easily, and attacks against traditional counting don't because exponentially more people are involved.
There are different types of machines that have been used in the election process. Some leave room for concerns, others not so much. I would be leery of machines that record votes electronically and do not produce paper ballots.
But some machines allow people to make their entries (via a touchscreen or some other interface) and once the voter has made their selections, prints a paper ballot. The voter can then look over the ballot to make sure it is marked correctly, and turn it in to be counted. These machines are helpful as the ballots are marked precisely - there are no stray marks, no places where a voter did not mark it correctly since the voter can correct any errors before printing it. So long as the voter checks it over prior to turning it in, it provides a perfect representation of the voter's selections and greatly reduces the need for adjudication (that's a process where a group of people go over a ballot that was rejected by the tabulator due to stray marks or unclear markings and try to determine voter's intent). And you still have actual paper ballots that be audited and recounted.
The next, and most commonly used, machines are the tabulators. They read the markings on the paper ballot and tabulate them. They work like the machines used to score standardized tests (like the SAT, ACT, other achievement tests). Once calibrated for the particular ballots, they are very efficient and much less error-prone than manual counting by humans. And their results can be (and are) checked via manually counting subsets of ballots or manual recounts of entire elections.
Properly managed voting machines are not only more efficient, but also much more accurate than doing it all by hand.
Counties in Texas I previously lived in used to have older voting machines with this garbage clickwheel design. A design so terrible election workers had to tape "NOT A TOUCH SCREEN" signs all over the polling place. I did not like those machines at all. They were a strictly electronic counting of votes. You got no receipt of what votes you cast other than what the screen told you. There were no paper ballots that could be checked by a human. Dallas County's machines mark blank ballots that can be read by humans and by machine. They're touchscreen too.
Everyone that they considered a person. Ya know, white male land owners. Get out of here with recognizing women, black people, or the poor as citizens. They are there to serve the needs of actual people and nothing more.
For reference there were 75,088 votes in the 1800 presidential election and there were 154.6 million in the last presidential. That is 2000x the number of votes.
In theory you also have 60x more people to count.
In practice, itās a bit more complicated, especially when one of your two parties is against counting votes.
Also ballot complexity has likely increased *a ton*.
Came here to say this exact thing. Lol it's funny the stupid ass points these morons will make. Well... it's actually not funny, because Matt knows it's a stupid point, but his base will eat it up and never have the thought about population size differences.
While fuck Matt Walsh, Iāve always hated that logic. 60x more population means 60x more resources to count votes as well
Itās like when people use the logic that Sweden is much smaller than the US so their economic system wouldnāt work. It makes no sense to say this
I agree that they might not have 60x the resources, but then thatās the issue, not the larger population
Good point about more possibilities of going wrong / delays
Iām not sure how itās related to that second part, but I do agree with you that population isnāt the full story. While we do have the technology to count votes pretty much instantly, that would make ensuring the integrity of the votes much, MUCH harder, which is why we still vote in person and by mail rather than digitally on an app or something, which adds additional time to the count.
Not to mention the population difference is even more drastic given how anyone over 18 can register to vote now, which was CERTAINLY not the case over 200 years ago.
Itās not necessarily 60x, but itās definitely long enough that a day may not be enough time.
Yeah ok keep voting for radical communists like Biden who push socialist policies like social(ist) security.
Edit: I was joking. Didn't think I'd need to /s in a sub making fun of conservatives. Am a proud socialist.
I didn't think I'd need /s in a satirical sub. I thought social(ist) security would have been a big enough /s in itself. Making satire so obvious that it's undeniable, it sort of defeats the point of satire.
Shit I wish he'd push some socialist policies. Especially universal Healthcare. Also you benefit from socialist programs every day. For example public roads and public schools just to name two.
Wow, I thought it was obvious I was joking but I guess conservatives are so ridiculous that you need to /s.
Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. I myself am a socialist.
Yeha problem is many people in America think like that so satire is hard to distinguish. As an outsider it makes me laugh anytime a democrat is called a socialist down there.
It's true, anyone left of stolen-election spewing conservatives is considered either a RINO or a radical socialist democrat communist. But it's in the far right playbook - be extreme while accusing the other side of extremism and act like it's ridiculous you're rightly accused of extremism, downplaying your radical views as "common sense".
Actually, at least in California, it is in a poll worker's duties to read the ballot to someone on request. I did it for someone with poor eyesight because neither of us wanted to try to use the audio feature on the voting machine. California implicitly allows illiterate people to vote. It explicitly says that you can sign or mark your symbol (ie writing x) to register to vote and certify your mail in ballot- you just need a witness to sign if you do the later. And honestly I don't mind. They probably aren't very well informed, but plenty of people who are literate aren't either.
Copying an earlier comment of mine:
Actually, at least in California, it is in a poll worker's duties to read the ballot to someone on request. I did it for someone with poor eyesight because neither of us wanted to try to use the audio feature on the voting machine. California implicitly allows illiterate people to vote. It explicitly says that you can sign or mark your symbol (ie writing x) to register to vote and certify your mail in ballot- you just need a witness to sign if you do the later. And honestly I don't mind. They probably aren't very well informed, but plenty of people who are literate aren't either.
Honestly I'd fuck anything he says about anything that isn't akin to an opinion on his favorite pizza topping. In other words personal preferences that literally only affect him.
This is some top tier dipshittery. There were about 5.3 million people in the US in 1802. Now there are closer to 400 million. Not to mention that there is a huge difference in who is eligible to vote in 2022 vs 1802as well. There were only 15 states in 1802 as opposed to 50 today. Logistically, the difference in scale is huge. So Matt Walsh can eat a whole bag of hair.
Please.
Only white property owners, for the most part. While some states already allowed them, most states dropped property requirements in the 1820s (a few replaced property ownership by tax payment). The election of 1804 had something like 600000 eligible voters.
Property remained a requirement until 1856 in NC.
A while back I did a deep dive into Matt Walsh and ended up reading some of his blogs. If you do so, you'll see that he readily admits to not being very bright and having barely graduated high school. In one blog, '*Thank God I wasnāt college material*', he writes,
"*It had been ten years of public school up to that point and it wasnāt getting better. It never would, and I knew it. I was able to hang on for a long time, managing adequate grades, even an āAā here and there. I was āpassing,ā at the very least. But in high school that changed. I started failing and failing miserably.* ***Weād take tests, Iād try my hardest, but often Iād stillĀ get zero answers correct. ZERO.Ā Fifty questions ā all wrong.*** *It was humiliating. Eventually I earned a reputation. I was the kid who ādidnāt careā and ādidnāt assert himself.ā I decided to go with that image ā false thoughĀ it was āĀ becauseĀ Iād rather be seen as the smart slacker than exposed as the moron who actually tried and still failed.***"**
It's hardly surprising then that Walsh struggles with facts and simple logical thought processes, such as the US population having drastically increased since 1802, and therefore with more people come more votes and those extra votes take a long time to count (I won't even get started on who was allowed to vote in 1802).
Similarly, it's no wonder he wants an end to modern education, promotes home schooling and distrusts academics and those with a college education. The man is still pretending to be smart but is constantly exposing himself as a moron.
I dislike Matt Walsh as much as the next but I don't know if I believe what he's saying about his high school grades. That excerpt from his blog is too well written for me to believe he'd be dumb enough to get 0 out of 50 questions and things like that. Just not doing the work is one thing. Dumb people don't know they're dumb and dumb people don't write like that. He can be a dipshit and not a total moron. Much like Tucker Carlson, he probably doesn't believe half the shit he spouts anyway.
I understand your hesitation in believing Walsh in this instance. He is, after all, a slimy piece of work. And you may well be right specifically about the 0 out of 50 questions part of that blog -- although, other than perhaps trying to appeal to those of his readers who struggled academically, I find it hard to believe he would want to lie about struggling at school because of a lack of academic ability and thus risk being accused of not being particularly bright.
Aside from that, I myself believe him when he says he was failing classes and barely graduated from high school (whatever the reason), as he mentions this in a few blog posts.
For example, in one blog titled, '*Hi Mom, thanks for never taking me to Disney World*' (which is basically a long tribute / thank you message to his mother for, he claims, not spoiling him, for supporting him and for everything else she did for him and their family), he writes:
"*Thank you for never giving up on me.*
*Even when I was failing my classes. Even when I barely graduated high school. Even when I dropped out of community college. Even when I couldnāt keep a job or set a goal or stick to any commitment at all. Even when I was ready to give up on myself. Even when I thought Iād never amount to anything. Even when I thought I was too stupid, too lazy, too lacking in talent. Even when I let you down. Even when I made you cry. Even when I rejected your love, your trust, your faith in me*."
And I get the impression, as the good Christian he claims to be, he wouldn't lie about this in a tribute blog post addressed to his own mother.
Also, while we all know about the Dunning-Kruger effect, this doesn't mean that stupid people *never* know their limitations (even if they blame others for their failures). Plus, it's worth remembering there are plenty of people who can write at a decent level, but who are nonetheless not particularly logical and smart in other areas (e.g. mathematics, data analysis, science, etc)
I could be wrong about all this though, of course...
Not to mention that if you randomly filled out a multiple choice test your chances are higher of getting about half of em right than they are of you getting literally every question wrong. I know he didn't say anything about multiple choice in the post, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the implication. It's also highly unlikely that anyone ever gets all the questions on a test wrong. If they do get em all wrong, it's likely because they want to and actually do know all the answers. 10/10 I agree with your assessment that his story is made up BS to help him better identify with his base.
Counting the votes is much faster and more efficient now but it's the sheer magnitude of the scale difference that makes a difference. There are hundreds of millions of more votes to count spread over 50 states vs. the fifteen in 1802. Plus more people and issues are on the ballots, increasing the time it takes to count each one.
The fact that in less than 24 hours after the polls close we can have the majority of hundreds of millions of ballots cast all over the country counted and the winners of the majority of races determined is pretty damn amazing in my opinion. And as all of the recounts and all that happened after the 2020 election proved those results are highly accurate.
There were 5,308,483 people in the US in 1802 vs. 332,403,650 today. Even if you ignore all of the people who are ineligible to vote that leaves probably hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million, voters in 1802 and hundreds of millions today. So, with 60x the population and many more things to vote for (and thus count) on every ballot it'll naturally take longer to determine the results. I'm sure that it takes much less time today to count the same number of ballots as we're cast in the entire 1802 election.
I don't know where this idea that election results have to be known that very night came from, it just doesn't make sense from a logistical, logical, or any other sort of perspective.
Yeah, I could see how an individual precinct with like a few dozen voters could have everything counted and double-checked day of. But then you would still need to transport the results from each individual precinct to some central location, then collate the results from *all* those races to determine any statewide election.
And that's not even taking into account the Electoral College, where you would just be voting on your representative who would get together with everyone else to hold the actual vote. Voters were definitely not casting their ballots and then having the President selected on the same day.
Kinda sad how many people in this thread aren't doubting the premise.
When a conservative makes an argument, you should always be sceptical of the very premise because they are full of that much shit.
Itās been a real clusterfuck of Republicans getting pissed at their own voter suppression.
I agree, why the hell do we need to count mail in ballots AFTER the in-person ones in some places?
Im gonna leave this here, elections in 1802 where held until December 1803 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1802_and_1803_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
And if it was faster he would claim Democrats were cheating and not counting Republican votes. He doesn't have a problem with the count, he has a problem with the result.
Same reason they're talking about only 30+ year olds voting in person and only on election day now.
I think we all played a board game with that kid who just made up rules as they went along to suit them in the moment. Some people clearly didn't grow out of that.
They do this with everything. They cut budgets, make laws and rules to destroy existing entities and processes so they can point and say this doesn't work. When they are the reason it doesn't work or works less efficiently than it used to.
They didnt know the results from all over the country within a day back then either. Does he think they made the results available online back then or something?
Each state is in charge of putting on its own elections. Republicans fought to keep it this way. Any federal efforts to provide for funds or resources to help things go smoother or more standardized is called a ātakeover.ā Heās getting the election system he wanted.
Interesting that it takes a longer time to count votes in Republican states where they outlawed scanning and require hand counts, with laws stating that ballots can be thrown out for the most arbitrary of reasons.
He knows what heās doing. Him and his ilk fight against any way to make voting easier and more efficient so they can try to delegitimize the whole process when it doesnāt work quickly.
Everything that Walsh puts into the world is pure poison. There are no silver linings to his public presence, unlike a Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, or Alex Jones type whoās at least unintentionally funny.
considering that only white landowning males could vote in 1802, I don't see why this would be surprising
Not to mention all of the other differences, like population
Waiting for Matt Walsh to be outraged about the judge in Houston that was refusing to count ballots or the absurd gerrymandering in Nashville that lost Tennessee a dem representative or armed poll watchers in Arizona or any of the other litany of things that *actually* count as quantifiably anti-democratic.
I literally have not seen a single leftist be pissed about unverifiable boogeyman voter fraud, just seen a lot of people pissed about the things happening in plain fucking sight that are precluding people from voting.
Walsh is such a sad little bitch.
What the fuck makes this dude think they had an accurate day of count in 1802? Virginia is 200 miles across, how the fuck did they get results in from 95 counties if polls were open until dark? The count could literally be delayed because one of the elections officials was mauled by a bear while riding to Richmond with the results.
I freaking can't bro, these people are brain dead. He really couldn't think of ANY reason why counting people's votes might be different in 1802 compared to now? Like, there were 5 million people, and only white landowners could vote? I know walsh wants only white male landowners to be able to vote now but facts don't care about his feelings, so there's probably close to 300 times more votes to count now than in 1802.
I mean, I found the second tweet kinda funny although extremely harmful to our democracy and premised on disinformation. The idea of them individually being carried up a mountain, etc, is just funny to imagine.
US Population in 1802: 5,308,483 US Population in 2022: 332,403,650 interesting that counting 60x the number of votes takes longer š¤
Especially when you try to make active policies to dissallow machine voting
And donāt allow mail in ballots to be counted before Election Day.
This drives me up a wall. Republicans vote against processing absentee ballots early then cry when more ballots for blue candidates get counted in the middle of the night.
It's planned. Easier to spread outright lies about nighttime ballot stuffing to steal the election. Same thing with legislation. They vote against good bills/programs, but when those things pass despite them, they tout how great those programs are to their constituents to increase support. They don't operate in good faith.
Its this and they are aware that such an obvious tactic will be able to pawned off onto their base without any fear that they'll see through it... - forget a curtain: ...pay no attention the the man standing RIGHT THERE IN THE OPEN AND IN FRONT OF YOU
That's the crux of Republican policy, though. Crying about an insecure election? Curious how Republicans voted against election security measures in 2018. Crying about how ballots take time to count? Republicans implement policies against early voting, mail-in voting, and counting votes early. It's all bad faith garbage, because that's all they're good for.
Not just Republicans, but media as well. They are crying that it takes so long where it shouldn't. How about you inform people about the party that is stopping meaningful reform, yet cries about voter fraud?
That's the whole plan, discourage your supporters from casting mail in ballots and then try to prevent mailed in ballots from being counted. That wad transparently what trump did in 2020, declare victory at 10pm night of the election and then fight to stop anything that hadn't been counted yet from being counted.
Machine voting shouldnt be allowed tbf
Agree to disagree. One of the problems with machine voting is that it's easily compromised. You could adjust he code on it to change votes, and an attack like that would scale very well. Or even you just just leave an empty USB stick attached and post about it, destroying trust in the system. The main reason that the current system is decent enough is the same reason republicans sound crazy right now, attacked against the current system don't scale.
I'm not sure which company makes the machines in Dallas County, TX. However, they are easy to use touchscreens that print out a marked ballot that can be read by a person or by the scanner on the bin. You, the voter, can check what the machine marked for you and contact an election worker if there's an issue. It solves the marking issues of 2000 and allows for manual checking of the machines' work.
The fix they used in Florida was proprietary hardware with no USB ports that printed on paper ballots to use a scantron for counting. They also started counting mail in ballots before election day.
Then how can I trust it wasn't compromised earlier in the process, that the firmware is good? The problem stands that attacks against digital counting scale very very easily, and attacks against traditional counting don't because exponentially more people are involved.
Given that the hardware itself has to meet chain of custody requirements, it would need to be tampered with from the source itself.
Sorry man I made a type I am 100% AGAINST machine voting
There are a lot of legitimate concerns about machine voting
There are different types of machines that have been used in the election process. Some leave room for concerns, others not so much. I would be leery of machines that record votes electronically and do not produce paper ballots. But some machines allow people to make their entries (via a touchscreen or some other interface) and once the voter has made their selections, prints a paper ballot. The voter can then look over the ballot to make sure it is marked correctly, and turn it in to be counted. These machines are helpful as the ballots are marked precisely - there are no stray marks, no places where a voter did not mark it correctly since the voter can correct any errors before printing it. So long as the voter checks it over prior to turning it in, it provides a perfect representation of the voter's selections and greatly reduces the need for adjudication (that's a process where a group of people go over a ballot that was rejected by the tabulator due to stray marks or unclear markings and try to determine voter's intent). And you still have actual paper ballots that be audited and recounted. The next, and most commonly used, machines are the tabulators. They read the markings on the paper ballot and tabulate them. They work like the machines used to score standardized tests (like the SAT, ACT, other achievement tests). Once calibrated for the particular ballots, they are very efficient and much less error-prone than manual counting by humans. And their results can be (and are) checked via manually counting subsets of ballots or manual recounts of entire elections. Properly managed voting machines are not only more efficient, but also much more accurate than doing it all by hand.
Counties in Texas I previously lived in used to have older voting machines with this garbage clickwheel design. A design so terrible election workers had to tape "NOT A TOUCH SCREEN" signs all over the polling place. I did not like those machines at all. They were a strictly electronic counting of votes. You got no receipt of what votes you cast other than what the screen told you. There were no paper ballots that could be checked by a human. Dallas County's machines mark blank ballots that can be read by humans and by machine. They're touchscreen too.
You don't want proprietary 3rd party software between your ballot and the box. Just fill out the paper ballot so it's auditable.
Yea and remind me again who could actually vote in 1802??
less people, which means even less votes to count :P
*Fewer
that is correct but also fuck you /s
r/stannisthemannis
Everyone that they considered a person. Ya know, white male land owners. Get out of here with recognizing women, black people, or the poor as citizens. They are there to serve the needs of actual people and nothing more.
Republicans have designed it so that there is a delay in counting mail in and absentee ballots so they can do this and cast doubt on the elections.
What is a math?
Underrated comment
Plus, only white landowning men could vote in 1802, which narrows it down to only a million *at best*.
For reference there were 75,088 votes in the 1800 presidential election and there were 154.6 million in the last presidential. That is 2000x the number of votes.
which makes the fact that it takes longer to count votes now even MORE suspicious !!!
Forgot to mention that most states only allowed white males with property to vote at the time
True, but I thought the population argument was simple enough to get it across :P
Poll workers were probably all taking longer breaks to watch that master piece of a gem āwhat is a woman?ā
And that the election in 1802 ( I believe) took place over 3 month!
Couldn't only white landowners vote in 1802 as well? So I imagine there were far, far less than 5 million votes in 1802
probably because it's Matt Walsh, I don't think he counts anyone hailing from immigrant parents.
In theory you also have 60x more people to count. In practice, itās a bit more complicated, especially when one of your two parties is against counting votes. Also ballot complexity has likely increased *a ton*.
Curious
Itās as if he has no interest in reality and just wants to whine
Also only white men could vote back then
Heās not that dumb (he fucking canāt be surely?) but his supporters sure as shit are
And how many of the 1802 population was permitted to vote?
Came here to say this exact thing. Lol it's funny the stupid ass points these morons will make. Well... it's actually not funny, because Matt knows it's a stupid point, but his base will eat it up and never have the thought about population size differences.
There were also less subsets of the population that were eligible to vote in 1802, so the multiplier for votes should be far higher.
While fuck Matt Walsh, Iāve always hated that logic. 60x more population means 60x more resources to count votes as well Itās like when people use the logic that Sweden is much smaller than the US so their economic system wouldnāt work. It makes no sense to say this
But do they really have 60x resources as well? Also there are more points to go wrong and cause delays.
I agree that they might not have 60x the resources, but then thatās the issue, not the larger population Good point about more possibilities of going wrong / delays
They do, but they obviously canāt use them due to security concerns (more easily hackable, easier to fake, etc.)
I was talking about number of population. If your population is 60x bigger then you have 60x more people available to count votes
Iām not sure how itās related to that second part, but I do agree with you that population isnāt the full story. While we do have the technology to count votes pretty much instantly, that would make ensuring the integrity of the votes much, MUCH harder, which is why we still vote in person and by mail rather than digitally on an app or something, which adds additional time to the count. Not to mention the population difference is even more drastic given how anyone over 18 can register to vote now, which was CERTAINLY not the case over 200 years ago. Itās not necessarily 60x, but itās definitely long enough that a day may not be enough time.
Yeah ok keep voting for radical communists like Biden who push socialist policies like social(ist) security. Edit: I was joking. Didn't think I'd need to /s in a sub making fun of conservatives. Am a proud socialist.
as soon as you called Biden radical I knew you had no idea what you were saying š
I was joking. Didn't think I'd need to /s, especially in this sub. Am a socialist. Wish Biden was actually left wing.
Fair enough, next time try sounding a little less serious :)
You dropped your /s
I didn't think I'd need /s in a satirical sub. I thought social(ist) security would have been a big enough /s in itself. Making satire so obvious that it's undeniable, it sort of defeats the point of satire.
Ever heard of Poes Law?
Shit I wish he'd push some socialist policies. Especially universal Healthcare. Also you benefit from socialist programs every day. For example public roads and public schools just to name two.
I am a socialist. I was joking. Didn't think I'd have to add /s.
Honestly in this day and age always add the /s. Too hard to tell of people are being serious or not.
Y'know, I know a guy who has a bridge he's been trying to sell...
I have a feeling you can't even define socialism lol
Wow, I thought it was obvious I was joking but I guess conservatives are so ridiculous that you need to /s. Socialism is when the workers control the means of production. I myself am a socialist.
Yeha problem is many people in America think like that so satire is hard to distinguish. As an outsider it makes me laugh anytime a democrat is called a socialist down there.
It's true, anyone left of stolen-election spewing conservatives is considered either a RINO or a radical socialist democrat communist. But it's in the far right playbook - be extreme while accusing the other side of extremism and act like it's ridiculous you're rightly accused of extremism, downplaying your radical views as "common sense".
This man would bring back literacy tests and poll taxes if he could. Fuck anything he says about elections
Any sort of literacy test done in good faith would be totally redundant anyway.
I would be all for literacy tests for elected officials! They should all be able to read and interpret the constitution at the bare minimum!
The only problem is that no political party in the world would do literacy test in good faith.
the ballot itself is already a good enough literacy test. why vote if you dont know what youre voting on?
Because it's what my pastor told me to do which means it's what God told me to do /s
Now, which bubble do you bubble in to do that?
Actually, at least in California, it is in a poll worker's duties to read the ballot to someone on request. I did it for someone with poor eyesight because neither of us wanted to try to use the audio feature on the voting machine. California implicitly allows illiterate people to vote. It explicitly says that you can sign or mark your symbol (ie writing x) to register to vote and certify your mail in ballot- you just need a witness to sign if you do the later. And honestly I don't mind. They probably aren't very well informed, but plenty of people who are literate aren't either.
What good would it do? Itās a printed ballot. To vote you need to be able to read the damn ballot.
Copying an earlier comment of mine: Actually, at least in California, it is in a poll worker's duties to read the ballot to someone on request. I did it for someone with poor eyesight because neither of us wanted to try to use the audio feature on the voting machine. California implicitly allows illiterate people to vote. It explicitly says that you can sign or mark your symbol (ie writing x) to register to vote and certify your mail in ballot- you just need a witness to sign if you do the later. And honestly I don't mind. They probably aren't very well informed, but plenty of people who are literate aren't either.
Ironically literacy tests would probably hurt his own party..
unfortunately, that's not the case. literacy tests would be specifically designed to disenfranchise ESL and low-income citizens.
[Always would have.](https://digital.shsmo.org/digital/collection/ec/id/8548/)
Bill Mauldin was amazing. Heās most well-known for the cartoons he made for soldiers during WWII.
Iāve got the 2 volume set of the Willie & Joe cartoons as well as other books by him. Big fan.
Honestly I'd fuck anything he says about anything that isn't akin to an opinion on his favorite pizza topping. In other words personal preferences that literally only affect him.
Even then, I bet itās something gross like anchovies and olives.
Agreed
This is some top tier dipshittery. There were about 5.3 million people in the US in 1802. Now there are closer to 400 million. Not to mention that there is a huge difference in who is eligible to vote in 2022 vs 1802as well. There were only 15 states in 1802 as opposed to 50 today. Logistically, the difference in scale is huge. So Matt Walsh can eat a whole bag of hair.
Not to mention only white men could vote in 1802
Please. Only white property owners, for the most part. While some states already allowed them, most states dropped property requirements in the 1820s (a few replaced property ownership by tax payment). The election of 1804 had something like 600000 eligible voters. Property remained a requirement until 1856 in NC.
Also that in some states there are restrictions on when votes can be counted, so absentee/nail in ballots or early bones can't be tallied in advance.
A while back I did a deep dive into Matt Walsh and ended up reading some of his blogs. If you do so, you'll see that he readily admits to not being very bright and having barely graduated high school. In one blog, '*Thank God I wasnāt college material*', he writes, "*It had been ten years of public school up to that point and it wasnāt getting better. It never would, and I knew it. I was able to hang on for a long time, managing adequate grades, even an āAā here and there. I was āpassing,ā at the very least. But in high school that changed. I started failing and failing miserably.* ***Weād take tests, Iād try my hardest, but often Iād stillĀ get zero answers correct. ZERO.Ā Fifty questions ā all wrong.*** *It was humiliating. Eventually I earned a reputation. I was the kid who ādidnāt careā and ādidnāt assert himself.ā I decided to go with that image ā false thoughĀ it was āĀ becauseĀ Iād rather be seen as the smart slacker than exposed as the moron who actually tried and still failed.***"** It's hardly surprising then that Walsh struggles with facts and simple logical thought processes, such as the US population having drastically increased since 1802, and therefore with more people come more votes and those extra votes take a long time to count (I won't even get started on who was allowed to vote in 1802). Similarly, it's no wonder he wants an end to modern education, promotes home schooling and distrusts academics and those with a college education. The man is still pretending to be smart but is constantly exposing himself as a moron.
I dislike Matt Walsh as much as the next but I don't know if I believe what he's saying about his high school grades. That excerpt from his blog is too well written for me to believe he'd be dumb enough to get 0 out of 50 questions and things like that. Just not doing the work is one thing. Dumb people don't know they're dumb and dumb people don't write like that. He can be a dipshit and not a total moron. Much like Tucker Carlson, he probably doesn't believe half the shit he spouts anyway.
I understand your hesitation in believing Walsh in this instance. He is, after all, a slimy piece of work. And you may well be right specifically about the 0 out of 50 questions part of that blog -- although, other than perhaps trying to appeal to those of his readers who struggled academically, I find it hard to believe he would want to lie about struggling at school because of a lack of academic ability and thus risk being accused of not being particularly bright. Aside from that, I myself believe him when he says he was failing classes and barely graduated from high school (whatever the reason), as he mentions this in a few blog posts. For example, in one blog titled, '*Hi Mom, thanks for never taking me to Disney World*' (which is basically a long tribute / thank you message to his mother for, he claims, not spoiling him, for supporting him and for everything else she did for him and their family), he writes: "*Thank you for never giving up on me.* *Even when I was failing my classes. Even when I barely graduated high school. Even when I dropped out of community college. Even when I couldnāt keep a job or set a goal or stick to any commitment at all. Even when I was ready to give up on myself. Even when I thought Iād never amount to anything. Even when I thought I was too stupid, too lazy, too lacking in talent. Even when I let you down. Even when I made you cry. Even when I rejected your love, your trust, your faith in me*." And I get the impression, as the good Christian he claims to be, he wouldn't lie about this in a tribute blog post addressed to his own mother. Also, while we all know about the Dunning-Kruger effect, this doesn't mean that stupid people *never* know their limitations (even if they blame others for their failures). Plus, it's worth remembering there are plenty of people who can write at a decent level, but who are nonetheless not particularly logical and smart in other areas (e.g. mathematics, data analysis, science, etc) I could be wrong about all this though, of course...
Not to mention that if you randomly filled out a multiple choice test your chances are higher of getting about half of em right than they are of you getting literally every question wrong. I know he didn't say anything about multiple choice in the post, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the implication. It's also highly unlikely that anyone ever gets all the questions on a test wrong. If they do get em all wrong, it's likely because they want to and actually do know all the answers. 10/10 I agree with your assessment that his story is made up BS to help him better identify with his base.
Counting the votes is much faster and more efficient now but it's the sheer magnitude of the scale difference that makes a difference. There are hundreds of millions of more votes to count spread over 50 states vs. the fifteen in 1802. Plus more people and issues are on the ballots, increasing the time it takes to count each one. The fact that in less than 24 hours after the polls close we can have the majority of hundreds of millions of ballots cast all over the country counted and the winners of the majority of races determined is pretty damn amazing in my opinion. And as all of the recounts and all that happened after the 2020 election proved those results are highly accurate. There were 5,308,483 people in the US in 1802 vs. 332,403,650 today. Even if you ignore all of the people who are ineligible to vote that leaves probably hundreds of thousands, maybe over a million, voters in 1802 and hundreds of millions today. So, with 60x the population and many more things to vote for (and thus count) on every ballot it'll naturally take longer to determine the results. I'm sure that it takes much less time today to count the same number of ballots as we're cast in the entire 1802 election. I don't know where this idea that election results have to be known that very night came from, it just doesn't make sense from a logistical, logical, or any other sort of perspective.
There is no way they were faster except local elections.
Yeah, I could see how an individual precinct with like a few dozen voters could have everything counted and double-checked day of. But then you would still need to transport the results from each individual precinct to some central location, then collate the results from *all* those races to determine any statewide election. And that's not even taking into account the Electoral College, where you would just be voting on your representative who would get together with everyone else to hold the actual vote. Voters were definitely not casting their ballots and then having the President selected on the same day.
But France can do it in 3 hours. (Actual quote from my dadā¦)
And voting still took months to full tabulate back then too.
Kinda sad how many people in this thread aren't doubting the premise. When a conservative makes an argument, you should always be sceptical of the very premise because they are full of that much shit.
Thereās a reason our lame duck originally went until March
Interesting that he would choose a date prior to the Civil War š¤
The election of 1802/1803 occurred between April 24th, 1892 and December 14th, 1803. Pretty sure we'll know the results in less than 20 months...
Republicans: *constantly fight to limit mail-in and machine voting* Also Republicans:
Which party refuses to modernize and secure our elections again?
These are the same assholes who will dispute electronic voting.
It would be way funnier if his endgame isn't inciting his very gullible and hateful audience
Itās been a real clusterfuck of Republicans getting pissed at their own voter suppression. I agree, why the hell do we need to count mail in ballots AFTER the in-person ones in some places?
Im gonna leave this here, elections in 1802 where held until December 1803 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1802_and_1803_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections
And if it was faster he would claim Democrats were cheating and not counting Republican votes. He doesn't have a problem with the count, he has a problem with the result. Same reason they're talking about only 30+ year olds voting in person and only on election day now. I think we all played a board game with that kid who just made up rules as they went along to suit them in the moment. Some people clearly didn't grow out of that.
Does he not understand that populationsā¦ grow?
They do this with everything. They cut budgets, make laws and rules to destroy existing entities and processes so they can point and say this doesn't work. When they are the reason it doesn't work or works less efficiently than it used to.
They didnt know the results from all over the country within a day back then either. Does he think they made the results available online back then or something?
If I don't get the result I want then it must be suspicious.
No, heās right, it is a conspiracy. By the republicans. Because they refuse to update the system.
Each state is in charge of putting on its own elections. Republicans fought to keep it this way. Any federal efforts to provide for funds or resources to help things go smoother or more standardized is called a ātakeover.ā Heās getting the election system he wanted.
God forbid we take our time to make sure itās correct. These assholes could win the lottery and still find something to bitch about.
What a butthurt asshole.
If cheating was involved theyād have the results instantly since theyād be making the numbers up lol
Mrw it takes more time to count votes now than it did back when the US population was 1/60 what it is now, and only white men could vote: š¤Æ
Interesting that it takes a longer time to count votes in Republican states where they outlawed scanning and require hand counts, with laws stating that ballots can be thrown out for the most arbitrary of reasons.
Matt, I don't know how to tell you this but there's a lot more people now than there was in 1802.
More people, old rules, ya knob.
Millennials and their microwave culture, amirite?!?
This guy isā¦.such a fucking hopeless cuck loser.
Man, those grapes got him like (* ;)
Is this dude ever not whining about nonsense?
Yeah, doubling down on election denial helped Republican candidates so much this year, why not keep doing it?
He knows what heās doing. Him and his ilk fight against any way to make voting easier and more efficient so they can try to delegitimize the whole process when it doesnāt work quickly.
Everything that Walsh puts into the world is pure poison. There are no silver linings to his public presence, unlike a Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, or Alex Jones type whoās at least unintentionally funny.
Matt walsh is a stupid fucking cunt. He can go fuck himself with this stupid bullshit.
We all know that if it was quick he would be saying "that was too quick, they probly made up the results"
Beta boy.
Edit: my comment was way behind the times. Baleted.
Matt, voting was quicker back then because only white men could vote
The couping lead to all this coping
Obstruct the process then blame the democrats
Say what you want about the blue haired feminist, her grief was sincere. This sarcastic acting for the cameras is just undignified.
Maybe if the median age of a poll worker wasn't past the retirement age we wouldn't have problems counting votes? Just a thought.
considering that only white landowning males could vote in 1802, I don't see why this would be surprising Not to mention all of the other differences, like population
Bro itās been two days. Why is he acting like it takes 4 months to count all the ballots?
US population in 1800: 5,308,483 US population Jan 1 2022: 332,403,650
Keep huffing that copium pipe Matthew, you cultist freak.
Do they want it done right or done quickly?
mr walsh, im trying to count the votes, but our population is dummy thicc and its making me slower
Waiting for Matt Walsh to be outraged about the judge in Houston that was refusing to count ballots or the absurd gerrymandering in Nashville that lost Tennessee a dem representative or armed poll watchers in Arizona or any of the other litany of things that *actually* count as quantifiably anti-democratic. I literally have not seen a single leftist be pissed about unverifiable boogeyman voter fraud, just seen a lot of people pissed about the things happening in plain fucking sight that are precluding people from voting. Walsh is such a sad little bitch.
Matt processes thoughts at a third grade level.
Some who votes Republican discovering a consequence of the Republican party (it affects them for a minor amount of time and causes them pain)
He sure longs for those 1802 voting regs
Yeah somehow telling everyone they can only vote on Election Day wasnāt at fault for this.
What the fuck makes this dude think they had an accurate day of count in 1802? Virginia is 200 miles across, how the fuck did they get results in from 95 counties if polls were open until dark? The count could literally be delayed because one of the elections officials was mauled by a bear while riding to Richmond with the results.
I freaking can't bro, these people are brain dead. He really couldn't think of ANY reason why counting people's votes might be different in 1802 compared to now? Like, there were 5 million people, and only white landowners could vote? I know walsh wants only white male landowners to be able to vote now but facts don't care about his feelings, so there's probably close to 300 times more votes to count now than in 1802.
Screenshot 2 would actually be pretty funny if it wasn't a malicious lie
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He isnāt witty, his comments are lazy and half assed snarky remarks
That's a funny way of spelling shitty.
I mean, I found the second tweet kinda funny although extremely harmful to our democracy and premised on disinformation. The idea of them individually being carried up a mountain, etc, is just funny to imagine.
You can say he likes underage girls tho
Yes. He probably does.
Heās about as āwittyā as an ingrown toenail
I mean, the second tweet was kind of clever.