• absentbird@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Centralized elections are often much more obfuscated and less transparent. Federated elections are more resistant to corruption and less confusing for voters.

    I know the exact process of my county’s voting system, I can meet with the people involved and have conversations with them. It’s a human-level system with paper records and secure processes.

    Replacing that with a top-down national voting system would not reduce obfuscation in any way.

    • BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The discussion was on wether or not the elections were obfuscated, which they are. You are now trying to move the goalposts on to a discussion of the merit of obfuscation, because you can’t make your brain work well enough to cede a point.

      • absentbird@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        The core issue is the system itself: first past the post voting necessitates two parties for decisive votes, and any method to arrive at that outcome is going to be hostile to nuance.

        Though I would argue that the process of choosing a super powerful leader through popular vote is a bit weird to begin with.

        There are a lot of things about American politics that need correcting, but the federated election process is not one of them. It’s a good thing, and it isn’t obfuscation. If you want to keep saying it is you’re going to have to explain it clearly.