@oclsc it doesn't need to be simultaneous, and it wouldn't be every precinct. Those in red locations would still think none of this applies to them. All that's needed is to suppress the vote in enough blue precincts to flip the results in key races.

@mattblaze "but that's illegal" isn't something that's been stopping this administration from just doing the thing first, and escalating to SCOTUS later if anyone fights it. If this administration was following the laws, I would be in full agreement with you, but we're disagreeing on the fundamentals here.

@mattblaze there's also some precedent for the Federal government dictating how states run elections: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I'm sure there are more than a few on the right that would love to use that precedent to takeover elections for their political motives. /4

@mattblaze the point that so many here have been making is that the laws may be good, and the system may be highly distributed, but those laws are worthless if the judicial and legislative branches keep rolling over in submission to the executive. We are becoming a country where might makes right, and it sickens me. /3

@mattblaze But if masked agents show up before the polls open, give a list of Republicans, order us to only allow those people to vote, tell us they know where we all live, and doing anything against their demands will result in masked agents busting in our doors at 3am to disappear us,... I'm not sure there are enough 60+ year old retirees willing to defy that. The few that resist may only result in their precinct being declared as invalid, which is just as good for this regime's goals. /2

@mattblaze election worker here. I simultaneously believe our elections are secure, and that they are vulnerable to a fascist takeover. When the laws are followed, any fraud is easy to detect and on an individual level that won't change the outcome. /1