view the rest of the comments
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:

- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
A whole lot of countries make it work:
https://web.archive.org/web/20221114152441/https%3A%2F%2Faceproject.org%2Fabout-en%2FCDTable%3Fquestion%3DVC005%26set_language%3Den
I tried to pick one of the largest population countries I could from the lists on that site - I chose the UK for this example.
Well, according to this website www.electoralcommission.org.uk, which appears to be the official government website for such things in the UK. I don't see where more than 1 person counts each ballot.
Also, this page www.electoralcommission.org.uk seems to say: 1) they may/may not agree to a recount and 2) I still don't see where they are recounted by more than 1 person.
I've been looking for an "official website" in the UK that lists both the original count and recount(s) numbers, but can't seem to find one (sorry about that). The closest I could find is on en.wikipedia.org about a Dec 1910 election (on that page under "General election December 1910: West Bromwich") - again, sorry I couldn't get a direct link to it.
My point is that the numbers change each time you count them. When you have far too many people (in "certain countries") claiming "It's all rigged! There is a 'deep state' controlling it! The numbers changing 'prove it'!, etc"; I don't really see how you are going to make it more accurate than machine counting.
As a side note: When the "Cyber Ninjas" recounted the 2020 Arizona votes they came up with a different number that the official machine counted total - which only showed that the original/officially declared winner won by MORE VOTES than the second place candidate (even though it was the second place candidate's party that claimed the original count was wrong www.cnbc.com).