Bunker D

“The best thing since Lady Ballers.”

To be frank, I'm a bit surprised and saddened to see you attack me for having underlined some real issues that could impact the elections.
You know that identifying issues is the first step to act upon them.

… “Throwing my hands up at the situation”:

And though I'm not surprised this “yet but” was understood otherwise, I'm a bit perplexed by your insistence in ignoring that the very ideas of bias, 🧊 at poll centers and postmarking issues are fundamentally incompatible with “if there won't be elections”.

“Yes but” was referring to “elections are run by the states.”
My reply underlined the way federal policies can still alter the elections.

I did not “defend people who imply that there may not be elections at all”.
I get why you think that (my “yes but”, in this context, could be understood like that).
But my point was solely to not ignore all the issues that might nonetheless plague the elections, and just assume “we're going to win”.

However, what I'm pushing forward, i.e., the idea that there will probably be elections but they might not be as “fair and free” as they should, echoes the positions of people whose job is literally to keep an eye on the situation or even oppose such biases, like @marcelias.bsky.social.

I never said something even close to that. I literally underlined things that could “BIAS” the elections… which can happen only if there ARE elections!
Nothing I'm talking about is about elections not happening.

Considering the USPS postmarking things, you can join efforts to inform the public (so that no ballot is lost by being posted without enough margin), or see with local groups to organize trips to the Postal Services for direct delivery (where manual postmarking should then be explicitly requested).

For example, if you feel those fears I mentioned don't apply to you, you are more than well situated to try to contact local activist groups to see if they have plans to alleviate the issue and if you can help.
You can also contact your representatives (at every level).

But if we want to also reduce said bias, we have to ACKNOWLEDGE it. Not attack people for underlining those possible issues. 🙄

And of note, the relevance of such awareness doesn't vanish if I don't have some magical solution to offer. You too can look for solutions after acknowledging an issue.

Nowhere did I talk about “giving up”. 😑

On the contrary, I said “bias”. A bias can be overcome. In fact, the post you're replying to explicitly mentions biases that are not new at all, and didn't keep us from electing Biden in 2020.

Trump calls on Republicans to ‘nationalize’ future elections | CNN Politics President Donald Trump called on Republicans to “nationalize the voting” in an interview airing Monday with Dan Bongino, the former deputy director of the FBI.

(Also, since my first comment, Trump has started to talk about “nationalizing” the elections in 15 places, and the Fulton County election centers have been searched (with even the Director of National Intelligence coming, which is unusual and concerning).)

Also who is talking about “just throwing ones hands up at the situation”?!
I'm not saying all is lost and we shouldn't even try.
I'm saying we should acknowledge the situation and what could be done to bias the votes. BIAS. Something that could be compensated through more votes.

Ultimately, the results in purple states will depend on who would have voted. And whether you personally are not afraid doesn't change the fact that many people, especially those the most at risk, might have preferred to “play it safe”.

That's not how it works though? Not everybody feels like they can risk it. Some can be more at risk or have more to lose.

Do you look like the people they've been targeting? Do you have a strong accent?
Are you a naturalized citizen? Do you have undocumented family members?
Do you know this fear?

Things like requiring a photo id to vote already bias elections because poorer people are statistically less likely to have a driver's license or a passport.
Or reducing the number of poll centers in cities to make it harder for people there to vote.
In purple states, stuff like that matters.

You get that people are afraid to leave the house, right? You get that a lot of non-white people and people with an accent (including citizens) feel like they have to carry their id just in case and fear it might not be sufficient to avoid problems?
Do you know what this fear feels like?

So? Why are you comparing this number to some population? Making people *afraid* to go to vote by posting agents in front of strategically selected poll centers would affect the votes at rates far beyond something like one agent per vote.

This new postal rule could make it more complicated to vote by mail If you mail your ballot on Election Day, it may not get postmarked that day — and in the 18 jurisdictions that allow ballots to arrive late, that means your ballot might not count.

Of note, it also means that people can no longer be sure the mail will be postmarked by this day by delivering it to the Postal Service. They have to request a manual postmark.

There are changes.
(And no, it's not necessarily “well understood” in vote-by-mail states. Not everybody is well informed)

Here’s What the New USPS Rule Means for Voting by Mail

The result is: while before it was commonly expected to have the mail dated the day you put it in the mail box it (provided you did so before the time is emptied), now the date can be delayed by an undefined number of days (that could also be affected by overload and policies slowing down USPS).

The postmarking policy “isn't new” only from a technical standpoint. But in actuality, at the end of 2025, USPS changed its transportation operation, delaying the arrival of the mail to the processing facility by an undefined and unknown number of days (rather than the usual same day).

Yes but.
- 🧊 outside poll centers can scare people.
- The new USPS postmarking policy can be instrumentalised to invalidate mail-in ballot.
- …

Anyway. My point: there will probably be elections. But they have the means to bias them.
We should also keep that in mind.

The “donations” are funneled through the Trust for the National Mall. And donations to this nonprofit organization are tax deductible.

Also, the donations are funneled through the Trust for the National Mall. Donations to this nonprofit organization are indeed tax deductible.
Ultimately, it's still most probably a waste of tax money.

The donations are funneled through the Trust for the National Mall. Donations to this nonprofit organization are indeed tax deductible. 😉

Besides, “privately funded” through tax-deductible donations a waste of money that would have otherwise been collected in taxes or used by another charity.
And those donations are funneled through the Trust for the National Mall. Donations to this nonprofit organization are indeed tax deductible.

Those donations are funneled through the Trust for the National Mall. Donations to this nonprofit organization are tax deductible.
Most probably, ultimately, this will be this much money not obtained and better used by the government for the benefit of the people.

Also, I doubt this won't ultimately cost $250 millions in taxpayers money.