Maybe you could rig an election in Emutopia and campaign to integrate Kiwiland to your mighty empire with a special military operation if you win there.
it is worth mentioning, many of these tactics apply to democratic countries outside the US, Australian politics for example really likes to use the journalism tactics.
No, because thats basically an evolution of "both sides bad". This video is about specifically the US election, and not all of the points are unique to the US, but many are. Most western nations are not two party, most dont have the level of gerrymandering, and most dont have an institution like the piece of crap Electoral college.
Remember: it always grants 10x more profit to belittle your opposition and discredit them, rather than appealing to the credit of your own policies. So don't even bother doing anything good, just ensure you're paintint your opposition in a worse frame than yourself every time you have the chance. The person who focuses more on good policies, loses. Because they're not spending their time well
@bigbadlara5304 not so long ago? Have you seen the "legal" record against Trump? Lol, they never stopped And R's didn't just start doing it; there's a bit more sense on that end of the aisle, but there is still a tendency to cater to the lowest denominators. Politics is a joke and has been since long before the first king put on a crown.
Step (1) Start a political party Step (2) Take over a second political party from the inside out, so it looks like you have competition, but you don't Step (3) Dominate, so the electorate thinks it only has a choice between THIS or THAT, the barest minimum of choices. Either way, you win. Step (4) Control elections until the end of time keeping the popular kids in power forever, because the electorate will never wake up and is too stwpid to realize, they can write in anybody other than your two candidates. Step (5) Profit!
I live in a normal democratic country (so standard voting laws) When I learned about the US electoral laws, I felt scammed by all the people that told me the US was a democratic country
We have so many broken systems that everyone in Washington abuses and benefits from (which is why they never get more than a half assed mention) that its a joke that we call our elections secure or legitimate. But anyone who watches mainstream media thinks "if my team won then our system of "democracy" works, if my team lose then it broke and illegitimate" I hate it here.
Yes, real democracies elect their leader based on who gets the most votes. Plain and simple. Better democracies give different parties power based on their number of votes, so no single person gets too much power. The fact the US has neither and the president gets to pardon anyone and themselves of crimes at will puts it literally one wrong step away from devolving into a dictature.
@@readyforlol What a phenomenally stupid thing to say. Almost every country has a public figure with pardon powers in the exact same manner as the US President, none are "devolving into a dictuture [sic]".
@@awesomebomb98 Electoral laws = how elections are held, and their inner workings. House of representatives is under electoral law I believe? Also, I'm not from EU, and I won't clarify from where I am, cause it's bot relevant! :D
Love you guys! Thanks Cody, I'll get to work on 2028 and I'll remember your generous gift and make sure to provide kangaroo parking spaces to land the CRITICAL Australian vote.
Man, I don’t know if this is supposed to be satire, or legit advice to sow more chaos in the US electoral process, because all of these points have been levied, proven to a limited extent, or are in active use…
To answer your question it's both. These tactics are proven and in active use, particularly by the Republican party. They benefit a lot from low voter turnout and propaganda on the news.
@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty I know you didn't just say this, unironically. You're talking about propaganda on the news when most news channels are state propaganda for the Blue team. Red team still has propaganda but you are part of the problem.
@@jiovanirivera852 No man, anyone on the red team is part of the problem. Red team benefits more from propaganda on the news, low voter turnout and lots of lobbying. Everything described in the video helps the Red team more.
@@ThunderTheBlackShadowKitty Both equally do it, and have instigated the Lensman Arms Race to see what tactics and strategies they can get away with, which further undermines the whole system. I largely do not give two fucks about who did what when. I have my biases, but my whole criticism is solely that it’s a loop of retaliation and escalation, that’s doing nothing but further exacerbating the very issues either party keeps slinging.
@readyforlol Maybe, but I, as a non American, really wanna know how they managed to vote for an old sick man and has deals with China and isn't really there half the time. I mean really... Was there no better candidate than this lame sock?
It’s not exactly that people don’t care enough to fact check everything it’s that it’s impossible to be skeptical about everything, some things have to be taken on faith, so lots of people default to checking nothing instead of judging what to check and what to trust. Also you are less likely to be skeptical about something that sounds good.
Just a note about the electoral college bit: 48 of the 50 states have practices in place where the electoral college votes from that state go to the winner of that state’s popular vote. In addition, the number of electoral votes isn’t arbitrary. It correlates to the number of congressional districts a state has (plus two for the senators). So it’s not tied to population, but rather to communities. The idea isn’t that the biggest populations get the most votes, but instead that all communities large and small have a relatively equal day in who represents the country. I’m not saying it’s perfect but this is pretty misleading ngl.
In what world do congressional districts represent communities? Their borders are drawn with the sole purpose of maximizing political power for the person drawing them. And in fact, the number of districts a state has is (roughly) proportional to its population, and congressional districts have about the same population (within each state). The reason the electoral college is dipropionate is that every state gets a flat +2. But that is not the biggest problem with the electoral college. As you point out, almost all of the states are winner-takes-all, which is why swing states are the only thing that matter and a big part of the reason why it's possible to win the electoral college without the popular vote. If every state distributed its votes in proportion to how its population voted, the electoral college would be dumb and slightly unfair, but not anywhere near as bad.
I used to believe the popular vote should mean something, but it can’t. New York and California values can not dictate the outcomes for rural areas. They simply can’t. It’s a safety check, and it is needed.
But New York, California, Texas and Flordia are all massivly divided politically. By not having a proportional system, the massive opposition parties in these states have no say in how the country is run. Similarly, the opposition parties in all the other states also have no say. The large states also include a massive amount of rural land, especially California. When less than half of the countries peeple can decide who rules it, that is a problem, no matter where they live. Add gerrymandering and unfaithfull electors into the mix, and the actual majority opinion becomes fully irrelevant.
Even if all those places united and voted for one person (which they wouldn't), doesn't that make like, only 10% of total population of the entire country? I don't think it would have the power you think it would, the numbers just don't add up.
Both-side arguments are so infuriating. Even if both sides have insufficient policies on your key issue, there’s almost always one side that’s clearly better than the other. And while this video is very US system focused, most other democratic systems allow for minor parties to be elected too.
But it gets worse: whoever talks a good game might still be abusive when doing the implementation. So it's not just ideas; it's tough to get the right combination of smart, equitable ideas with fair, competent action. (Of course we might disagree on what that means, but often you have "both sides" not even _appearing_ to make an earnest effort on both parts of this equation.... But.... Sometimes that "both sides" argument can give people a chance to decide which profits matter most, so people can decide which side _in totality_ is actually better.
I would like to note that the section starting around 7:20ish (regarding congressional/"electoral" districts) isn't applicable to a presidential race (Or any statewide race for that matter, such as governorships or US senate seats) in most cases. The only two states to split their electoral votes by congressional districts are Maine and Nebraska. The rest rely on a winner-takes-all system, where the winner of the state's popular vote gets all of that state's electoral votes. It should also be noted that all the electoral votes in a given state aren't based on congressional districts alone, but how many total seats they have in congress. (number of seats in the house of representatives + 2 seats in the senate)
Also note that Maine & Nebraska's method (The Congressional District Method) is more reflective how how each state voted. If all states adopted such a system, presidential races would be much closer. Candidates would need to campaign in more states rather than a select few swing states, as even the most partisan states still have districts that vote for the other party.
Still gerrymandering is a serious issue. I would argue it has far more reaching consequences than a presidential election would. Congress makes the laws in most cases and they can be in power for decades.
Or put another way, America is a federative republic and not a democracy. While it may seem like semantics, the difference does matter. America is a Union of States. Thus the name, the United States of America
@@deltanitros The United States WAS a union of states. It's now a centralized bureaucratic plutocracy. I do have hope that the United States is returning to a less centralized model, but that requires the collapse of most corporate media.
@@Joker22593 agreed. I was mainly referring to how the presidential election still functions but yeah the centralization of power is definitely something we want to see reversed and you're 100% right that the collapse of corporate media is a prerequisite for that. With the rise of independent media I don't think that collapse is too far off
5* Review I can honestly say, I've had absolutely no prior experience with rigging an election before. Sir Swag's guide was thorough, well-directed with easy-to-follow steps. I feel like I've become an expert in no time. Since watching this video, I've convinced my local bingo club to bring in carrot cake by gerrymandering all the horrible lemon cake voters out (yuck Doris!) and leaving the voting box on the one floor with no wheelchair access. In no time the majority of us who can still hobble up the 4 stairs and love our carrot cake stole the referendum!! I can wholeheartedly recommend Sir Swag's services to anyone looking to win an election, under any circumstances. With one phone call, I went from Nora No Experience to the bingo club electing me as their lunchtime queen! Thank you Sir Swag!!
i'm so happy that you mentioned murdoch and news corp, by far the most influential player in this whole situation, don't forget that political elites from both sides were great buddies with jepstein
Why do you think Murdoch is the most influential. Do you think Rupert Murdoch has more influence than Bob Iger? Murdoch used to own a majority share of Fox and the NY Post. Iger runs Fox, ABC, CBS, Univision, Maker Studios, Sinclair Broadcast Group, National Geographic, ESPN, Discovery, The History Channel, Hollywood Records, Lifetime Television, and HULU. He also comanages MSN, MSNBC, Vice Media, A&E Network, JP Morgan Chase, and Verizon. If you think think Disney is big and scary, Wait until you look at everything AOL Time-warner, Amazon, or Microsoft owns. 90% of all news is owned by 6 companies headquartered in New York City, which are jointly owned by 5 Silicon Valley Companies, and all of whom have their assets held by 3 investment banking firms. Those three investment banking firms, Blackrock, State Street, and Vanguard. They manage 88% of the fortune 500 companies possessing a total of $15 Trillion meaning 3 men own 10% of the entire world. It's all fine and good to disapprove of Rupert Murdoch. More power to you if you do, I certainly don't like the guy - but maybe a little perspective here is in order. Murdoch is like a little kids Lemonade Stand to the Big Three's Super Walmart.
I've been hesitant on the new commentator just because I really liked the text-to-speech but the sarcasm in this guys voice was top-notch, love it! Definitely won me over on this one!
It's better than the alternative of two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. The electrical college gives the lamb a weapon with which to defend itself... Think about that. Also, a person can be wise, collected, calm and intelligent. People are stupid, disorganized and easily agitated
Step 1: Find a voting practice that has been outlawed in most functioning Democracies, and make it legal in yours (mail in voting). Step 2: Find another voting practice that has been outlawed in most functioning democracies, and legalize it in yours (voting without identification) Step 3: Find ANOTHER voting practice that has been outlawed in most other functioning democracies, and legalize it in yours ( voting without being a legal citizen of said country ). Step 4: win every major election that matters, while awarding your “opponent” a few wins here and there that won’t directly take away any of your power, so that it looks legitimate. Step 5: Rinse and repeat until your citizens revolt against you (never).
The electoral college is set up because the USA is supposted to be a republic, meaning each state can be seen as their own country. Basically, we are 50 countries voting for a over all leader.
Unfortunately elections have to be that way in the US, as otherwise population hubs like Los Angeles will have complete political control of less populated areas like farm land, which would never work as the average LA citizen has no clue as to what the needs of a typical farmer are, and vice versa. It’s the only way to make sure that no State’s needs are trampled over on the national level. As at the end of the day, the US isn’t just a singular nation, but a union of 50 otherwise separate states.
If you compared the USA's electoral college system to the concept of a federated EU it makes a lot more sense. The system grants more bargaining power to smaller states. The system is intentionally gives every state the same base number of votes making it appear “weighted” the USA is a federated "Union of States" as smaller territories once agreed to join based on receiving equal votes in the senate, while the population would control the House of Representatives. A federated EU that didn’t have a similar system would be one where the smaller nations would be obliterated or made irrelevant and nonexistent by the larger nations. Disenfranchising the smaller nations is prevented by granting a set number of votes to everyone by default and increasing the amount based on population this is exactly how the Electoral College works. In such an allegory between the EC and EU it would not be out of place to hear claims that the Germans and French were disenfranchised by nations like Slovenia or Estonia having a voice in the EU parliament.
@@BlueLightningSky The USA is a federal system, it has to have thes ekind of rules, or the states wouldnt be states. Who would like to join th eEU if bigger countries coul just dictate what they will do? Nobody. Your comment is embarassing.
It's true. We don't go out to vote in Australia unless there's sausages. I always get a hot dog on election day, it's just what you do. That's why we don't have problems with voter turnouts.
Just do what happens here in Brazil, just contract someone to do a poll in a really big city (like São Paulo) in an area you know that people suport you, and then say "most of São Paulo will vote in this candidate" . The suckers votes will start raining, even tho they would just vote in noone.
Same. It's so outdated that it is dangerous to world security. If there were multiparty democracy without the first past the post system, I think US politics would be like EU politics, diverse in values, and more dynamic. I don't know if it can even be called real democracy, but at least it's not like fucking China lol.
correction on 0:17 : Iowa and Ohio have already been decided for the Red Team. Florida also is trending towards the Red Team, and while Minnesota can be a swing state sometimes, it's nearly 50-year long Blue Team streak means I consider it a Blue Team state.
The Electoral College is a novel and good system to amplify the influence of less populated but economically useful territories. Places like Scotland, Quebec and Alberta highlight the impact of a citizenry feeling alienated from the central government as a result of purely population-based representation and an Electoral College system addresses that issue. The fallacy of this and much other infotainment content about electoral systems is their presupposition that "more directly democratic = more good" In fact the idea of ideological rather than geographic representation underlying the concept can easily be connected to more of the video's identified problems than the inverse. Proportional representation systems encourage parties to hyper-focus on ideological demographics and not care about coherence with regional socioeconomic dynamics in how representatives actually behave. The quasi-oligarchic coalition conspiracies we've recently seen in places like Germany and Israel highlight that PR has its own unique and arguably worse problems than an individual vote in Wyoming technically counting for 3x more than one in California when Wyoming has 1.5% of the population as California so the state is still allocated dozens more College votes.
I would argue the opposite, given that cities have proven themselves throughout human history to naturally be more progressive and open-minded, I support a system under which urban voters have a larger say than rural ones to limit the spread of tyranny and hate within the Government. Not a perfect solution, and likely worse compared to a simple popular vote, but would have stopped a *hell* lot of injustice throughout American history.
@@chasemartin4450 Taking your simplifying assumptions at face value, you're making more of an argument for localism than at-large voting for the president. The head of a federation being solely elected by urban centers not only alienates rural voters but also undermines forces in favour of expert governance. Concentrating all the presidential electoral power in cities would favour theoretical, top-down policymakers in executive agencies even more than they currently are. Social policies aren't the be-all end-all concern of government, and alienating rural voters from federal participation discourages more practical knowledge from working its way up the hierarchy into major federal agencies. This is a dynamic readily observable in both modern and pre-1945 democratic and quasi-democratic systems where urban cadres of elites that mostly have theoretical rather than practical experience would impose beliefs on lower tiers in the hierarchy. This is what led to things like obvious in hindsight military shortcomings during WWI. Instead of reversing the dynamic of the typical argument about the EC like you did to essentially argue that rural voters should be disenfranchised because of a presumption that their social policy positions are always wrong, concerns about urban centers being shackled to these contemptible bumpkins should drive you towards a greater degree of state and regional autonomy wherein the progressive urban ubermensch can create more of their own social policies and if they're successful essentially show the rurals the benefits of a more enlightened government that they'd either then adopt or suffer the consequences of not adopting.
The main problem with the electoral college, moreso than the fact that some states get disproportionate representation, is the fact that in the current system almost all states are forced to vote as a block. For instance, a red vote in California literally never matters right now, and same with a blue vote in West Virginia or something. I do also have a problem with the disproportionate representation thing, don’t get me wrong, but if you simply subtracted 2 votes from every state in the electoral college I’d still want it abolished. The fact that “swing states and safe states” even exist as a concept is enough for me to want the system gone.
Oh sorry, I understand the confusion here. It's actually "free" with a little "tm" next to it. A lot of people miss that, I'm pretty sure it was Reagan who trade marked it, but I ain't no historian.
Because they are free? America's system of government pretty much guarantees that, even if you win the presidential election, you still have to deal with the legislature and supreme court to pass anything. And if you want to change the constitution, you need support from 2/3 of legislatures in both houses, and 3/4 of states to agree to it. Therefore, the rights of Americans are pretty much protected more than in any other country. Not to mention Americans have a lot more rights (e.g. right to free speech at a greater scale than in any other country).
Because it is. European countries like to brag about their "multiparty" system, but those parties always form into 2 large coalitions anyways. American parties are just pre-formed coalitions.
Ironic how this is coming out immediately after one political party just banned a candidate from the state ballot. Guess you should add that to the next video.
If you guys want to have a laugh, this is an old concept playing out, it's called "post democracy" As written about by crouch Im only 4:30 mins in, but you should see how the voting split in electoral strategy revolves around card-carrying members being ignored, radicals being radicalized, and moderates being institutionally and systematically demoralized from participation Now look at turnout rates Now back at me Now at older turnout rates Now back at me Now bac at even older ones. Godmode: cross reference turnout rates with levels of accessibility to democracy (e.g. between unicameral and bicameral systems)
1:06 ive noticed this a lot when Non-Americans look at the electoral system that they tend to ignore the history behind it and why we calculate the vites the way we do. The "small states vs big states" debate isent new in America; its been a thing since the formation of our country. The conneticut compromise was the first step on this road as it was created because of this very debate. The connecticut compromise of course being why we have a House of Representatives, which increases representation with population; and the senate, which is even between all states. Small states would not raitfy nor join the Union if everything was based on population, as states like Virginia who had more established populations would silence any political voice they had. In the modern day, this is still true even within the states. Just look at an electoral map of California, Illinois, or New York. The states federal voting choice as well as even its state governments are pretty much run by their populated cities. While this isent nessasary a bad thing on paper, it means that the local government and their representation in the federal government is skewed towards the Urban populations needs while the rest of the state is left to flounder. Once such case thats a good microcosm of that is the farmers in california whom produce a good amount of our more tropical food have no access to the water around them as its siphoned off to feed LA. When people bring up the argument "a person in wyomings vote is worth 3x as much" they are offering a face value argument without understanding why our system works that way. Also it doesent hurt to mention that despite "a Wyoming vote being work 3.36x as much" presidental candidates couldent even tell you where Wyoming is on a map. It would take all the states around wyoming, and the states around them, to make up Californias electoral count. Bit of a Post note as a political science graduate. The reason there is always 256 electoral votes is that your electoral votes count is based on the number of Reps and Senators your state has (Cali has 53 representatives and 2 senators. Wyoming has 1 representative and 2 senators). Edit: also kinda a P.P.S. the "voting power by population" was also where the 3/5ths compromise came into effect as slave states, of whom had some of the populated states like Virginia, wanted to count their slaves toward their representative count because it would artifically inflate their number of seats. Smaller states wished for slaves to count as none for the exact same purpose. The 3/5ths was the compromise between the two. Most of our political system is based on the compromises between the Smaller and Larger states
Let me explain why you're wrong with an example. If tomorrow California decided to split itself into 5 states, it would have the same total number of house seats, but gain 8 senate seats. Likewise the mere act of combining North and South Dakota magically erases 2 senate seats. So we can see that the senate has absolutely nothing to do with popular representation, but instead represents the arbitrary bits of land the US is divided into. So I ask: why should land get the right to vote? Shouldn't that be reserved for the people?
No. Land is more important than people, because you can make new people, but not make new land. Therefore land should decide, not the uneducated masses who are probably biased as well.
@@ThatCamel104 We don't usually call it "bias" when someone has political views, we just call them "opinions". And since everyone gets one vote, everyone's opinion gets heard equally. Calling people stupid because they don't agree with you personally is just silly. If you can't convince people that your side has the answers then you don't deserve to be in charge.
@@PlatinumAltaria you just said exactly what i just typed out mate. The senate waswnt meant to be about popular representation; the Senate was added to our legislature as part of the compromise for smaller states to give them a legislative body where they can compete and not be drowned oit by the population disparity. As of the last few years; it has become increasingly apperant that the current state lines arent working as states like california and oregon now are having its rural population want to join states that more closely align with its populations political beliefs. Meaning if we were to split california into 5 different states, it would actually draw power away from its populated zones and actually offer a voice to its more sparsely populated areas. The reason you will never see this be allowed to happen in any of the larger states is that those urban areas dont want to give up free political power; even if it would offer more representation to more people
Hot take. This is one of your least researched videos. While I don’t have much of a horse in the red/blue race. This is just a pretty standard “us election = bad video” with nothing new to say. Your team doesn’t really seem to know what the electoral college “is”. Contentious as it is not explaining what “it” is just comes off as straight up misrepresentation/misinformation, which while common nowadays isn’t something I’d expect here. In this case I’d argue not even giving a brief run down is more bulls**t than without it. Your team seems to have missed that near every state is winner take all (popular vote in that state decides the state) during presidential elections. Something which kind of torpedoes a large chunk of the video. Gerrymandered districts on their own don’t directly affect the presidential election even if they’re a bulls**t all their own. Not to mention the irony of bringing up media bias while covering this from seemingly the default media perspective with a lack of a unique perspective here. While this probably won’t even get read by your team I’d honestly suggest taking this down and do a more in-depth look into the US political system, it is full of tons of genuinely ignored aspects of corruption the common echo chamber doesn’t cover. If I wanted to watch this kind of filler I’d click on RU-vid’s News tab, rather than looking for real journalists like yourself to follow.
I dont know wether or not this video is sarcasticly targeting the republicans or democrats because its targeting republican gerrymandering and democrat corruption, And i love it
@@outmywritemind1739 he's not disputing any facts. he's stating something that happened this is not a partisan stance, almost everybody agrees that the judges had almost no ground to do what they did and that their decision will likely only stick as an an example that will push people to vote for Trump. could you turn on your brain and think critically for a second rather than replying to legitimate complaints with snark and pseudowit.
@@kingqw3rty-_-982almost everyone agrees? Trump tried to overthrow an election and now he has to face the consequences. You can't tell an angry crowd "fight like he'll or we won't have a country"
It never ceases to amaze me how people agree with the idea that the “average American” is an idiot not to be trusted but at the same time believes pure democracy / the populate vote should be the deciding factor
if we look on the scale of individual people, then a dumb persons vote counts for as much as his human behavior phd neighbour's vote does. if you look on a statewide scale, then the dependence of intelligence in the vote somewhat washes away (assuming intelligent people and dumb people are spred around the nation with equal distribution), because then then it is more about how district maps are drawn and which areas vote for which side, all that bullshit.
Doesn't seem like the elite are too smart either, this species is headed for a brick wall exactly because of the people in charge, deemed to be worthy of power. Yet these people only value is more power, more money, more, more until there's nothing left.
Cognitive Dissonance, what Orwell called Double Think is a powerful force. People want to have and eat their cake, and nothing you will every say will show them how absurd they're being. As for the electoral college debate, every system used has trade offs. The EC seems to have the negative side effect of disenfranchising high population states, that's not a bug - but it isn't the actual feature either. The EC was specifically design to stop tyranny of the majority, where densely populated consumer centers domineer sparsely populated producer centers. There is an argument on how effective that really is given that cities do have factories (albeit to a lesser degree than more rural areas). However, I point to how the EC is designed to be self regulating. Detroit used to have huge influence on Politics in America, and by extension the State of Michigan as a whole - due to extreme corruption and mismanagement there was a mass exodus and the area lost influence. The Same is true for California, who lost votes in the EC due to a mass exodos due to extreme corruption and mismanagement. This self regulating nature of the EC has a way of naturally punishing stupid ideas that don't work.
@@mathiasandersen3762 but there are more dumb people than smart people, so even if it’s evenly spread it’s still dumb people decided for everyone. It’s also easier to manipulate dumb people, and typically good people don’t want to rule over others so it really is just a bad system
We do not subscribe to Athenian democracy here in the US sir. Seems you weren’t paying attention in history class about Athens dictating policy to all the other city states in Greece.
would be really wild if someone found some of those voting districts that are clearly set up like described and starting disseminating that in meme format, because that would be something that the average person could grasp. wouldn't that just be wacky?
If only people with political science degrees working for campaign teams had brain cells. Doing that would change political opinions way faster than calling people or running TV ads
The way I see it, in my state there is no reason to vote. I already know with 100% certainty that my district will vote for the republican canidate, but most of the electorial votes will go to the democratic canidate. In effect my vote does not matter at all. Most americans already know what is wrong with our system, but the only people with the power to change it have a vested interest in not doing so.
@@tanker00v25The US is not a full blown Democracy nor Republic. We have the Electoral College and State Elections are really the only thing done truly "majority vote". The Constitution doesn't even mention the word "Democracy" at all while mentioning Republic multiple times
Loved the section about more subtle voter suppression. My dad (an elderly white man) was prevented from having his vote counted in the 2020 elections, when he was told to turn his ballot upside down to insert it into the voting machine. Our town is small, so we had the same voting staff. When I went to vote (a younger white male of Gen Z, dressing more like target demographic of the last election's victor) I was told no such thing. Not to mention, knowing full well that most people in my state work hard and long labor, a lot of our voting stations close early than some people even get off of work. I've heard that you can request time off to vote with no penalty before, but people clearly don't realize that larger companies have financial stakes in politics, and will no hesitate to threaten your job for attempting to vote when they don't want you to. Just look at Barack Obama's election in 2008. If we ever want our opinions and voices to be heard (this goes for majority groups and minority groups) we must get past this outdated two party system, and we must foster a culture of doing your own research again. We live in a day and age where you can trust a rumor heard from a gas station employee you've never talked to before over something you see on national television, and that's deeply disturbing
If your states/provinces don't already make decisions about the federal electoral system, change that shit. Quick. Most of the tricks don't work as well without this step.
