Why does one party keep interfering with voting?

Because that would lead to fair elections. And if elections were fair republicans would never win any.

Why would Democrats not simply extend and expand the Voting Rights Act when they have a Congressional majority? Dems had this in 2021 when Biden took office - both branches, plus the White House. They had it back in 2009 as well, when the House had two dozen votes to spare and the Senate enjoyed a 60 vote supermajority.

Why not send down more financial and legal aid, as Howard Dean championed back in 2008 when he was head of the DNC and delivered one of the largest landslide majorities in the party's history? Why not use federal money and manpower to amp up Mississippi state election offices?

Don't Democrats want to win in Mississippi?

Really like the thought of the Supreme Court being pulled from a random pool of Federal judges for each case. Fuck this appointed for life shit!

The problem with the US system seems to be that it's partisan all the way down. It's too easy for the parties standing for election to influence how the election itself is run and counted. This is, I guess, an effect of the USA's highly decentralized approach to elections: if the Republicans run a county, they get to decide how elections work in that county. A more centralized system wouldn't leave the same scope for tweaking each local election to get the desired result in that locality.

Literally never because they always have some bullshit way to legitimize their actions. It is fraud in the colloquial usage of the word, but not legally if they have specific arguments like "we were just referring to previous (lowest they could find) turnout numbers to save the taxpayers money!"

Yep, and it's compulsory voting, on a sensible day of the week and even pre-poll so you can just go in early if you want to. And sometimes there are sausages.

I have lived in several counties in Illinois and North Carolina. They have been urban or semi-urban counties. I have never experienced any problems voting anywhere I've lived. In fact, it seems like they bend over backwards to offer every option for voting. I am much more concerned about gerrymandering and effective bribery of elected officials using campaign donations.

In Germany it's overwhelmingly schools. There are several in every district everywhere, they are public buildings, they are easily accessible, they have enough room for events like this... It's a no brainer.

Schools, town halls, community centres, some libraries, some council buildings, certain community spaces like scout halls, basketball stadiums, rotary clubs etc.

Old churches that are now public halls are also opened as voting stations, and some actual churches while not open for voting due to conflicts of interest, do establish rapid housing programs so people can get legal addresses for electrotal enrolments in time for voting, and others will be open as census sites for homeless folk to record themselves on census night. I grew up in bum fuck nowhere and on election day if the weather was tolerance AEC would set up an open polling station on the local football oval just to move through the register faster than what the tiny local school could handle.

Since covid lock downs, eastern states especially have enhanced their postal and early voting processes.

For about 2 weeks before elections (local, state, federal) for the most part you can just walk into any of the above buildings, in litteraly any suburb town or city that's participating in the election, and cast your vote.

If you do your research on best venues and times, you can knock out your vote in 10 minutes flat. No queue.

Some people are eligible for postal votes too, you can request the ballot be mailed to you, or pick one up from the post office and cast your vote without leaving your home block.

But we're far from competent. While I love our preferential voting system, it's not well understood by the public, our LGA's are still subject to gerrymandering, and there are large swaths of our community that are legally prohibited from voting for various reasons that I personally feel is an unethical antidemocratic policy. There are also huge groups of indigenous peoples who do not have accessible electoral education, trustworthy polling processes, and are disenfranchised from the electrotal process, with little government support or funding for culturally appropriate programs for engagement. Despite our preferential voting, we have essentially devolved to a two party system with neither major party really being any better, do we want the party of bigots, or the party of other bigots?

i believe during times of sausage-related crises the state emergency services step in and air lift sausages from hardware store warehouses to effected polling places

they do not, however, transport onions by this means as they would cause unnecessary slip risk to the crew

I just reviewed this article from WLBT (conceivably a local station?) that was published on election day, while this was happening.

It opens with this:

A member of the Hinds County Republican Executive Committee is considering filing a lawsuit to keep the polls open longer after a number of Hinds County precincts ran out of ballots.

“We’re trying to figure out how to do it,” said committee member Pete Perry. “We’re trying to make sure voters get to vote.”

In direct opposition to what OP claims, the Republicans were fighting to keep the polls open.

Again, still open to conflicting evidence, which support’s OP’s claim.

So far what I can tell is that Democrats dropped the ball, disenfranchised thousands of black voters, and then attempted to blame Republicans for it, after also claiming to take responsibility for the failure.

6. You intentionally lower the amount of ballots sent to precincts you want to suppress the vote of.

Fuck so they won

Yeah you found a democracy supporter. I know you fascists don't support it, but you really should.

Digital voting is just the same human error with more steps. Nearly all of the issues with paper voting are present in digital voting and then some.

I wonder if one can use ghost keys for an anonymous voting system, which still ensures that a voter only votes once, and still makes all votes verifiable.

That would have much fewer issues.

Running unique code that cannot be run elsewhere, and is 100% open source such that the source can be viewed by anyone without exposing itself to risk that a smart enough bad actor can cause havoc?

No need to use some fantastically obscure hardware. Source code being open is not bad.

A voting system is the easiest thing to emulate. Except for load.

this is 100% correct

… but also, i do wish we had the best of both worlds: ONLY paper ballots are submitted as trustworthy, however machines that print on paper ballots (so if the machine stops working you can use a pencil as usual still). this ensures that people mark the ballots in a valid way, they can physically look at their ballot paper and ensure it’s what they want before submitting it, and the machine can record its ballots so they can be fed into a computer as a “preliminary” count so results are available ASAP, with the paper ballots confirming validity - the preliminary count is meaningless other than speed; paper ballots are the source of truth

You don't have me convinced and I genuinely don't understand how this could be the popular opinion. You absolutely can't convince me that with a well designed system it would be easy to cheat when compared to a piece of paper.

Why the hell would software need to be more complex than a few text lines that store the results of your selections? An amateur coder could create a simple multiple choice selection system in an afternoon.

Why does anything other than a local network need to be involved? It can literally function similarly to paper ballots and have a central recipient machine that collects the results that is then handed over to a ballot authority. Please keep going on for hours about the flaws instead of simplifying the problem.

A machine that is sitting in a voting hall is as easily tampered with as a paper ballot, and it's not going to be done by the average person. Anyone who could manipulate these machines could figure out how to mess with a paper ballot.

You can't 'run out' of a digital vote. You can't 'miscount' a digital vote. If both methods have issues, why choose the one that is OBVIOUSLY easier to manipulate? Oops! Someone misplaced the piece of paper you put in. The year is 2024 and all of the possible issues you've just brought up can be solved but it seems that it would be way too easy to actually have accurate vote counts and one less voter suppression tactic in the pocket of shady governments, so they won't.

Somehow Brazil makes it work, there are many many layers of redundancy so that any tampering would not affect the result, or be obvious.