Actually... wouldn't he be acting like a Hillary?
Mr Vice President Badger
Posts
Total:
38
-->
@AustinL0926
If you ever try to do this, I assure you that I will campaign very vigorously against it.
That sort of measure will prevent more intelligent candidates with a bad moral compass to begin creating decoy accounts to steal elections. Here is how many accounts I could have started with foresight 2 months ago.
1 house IP address phone
2. Work ip address phone
3. Phones actual IP address by self hosted metro PCS
A common phone like an iphone, and mods would not bat an eye at this. Let's assume VPNs are off the table as being too suspect. I have 3 more devices in my house with their own service and IP address.
Device #
4. Tablet for son
5. Wife's phone
6. Brother's phone
I have access to 6 libraries with their own computers and wifi address within 20 miles of my house
Device #
7. Library in bear Delaware
8. Library in Newark
9. Library in down town Newark
10. Library in Middletown Delaware (I am near there often)
11. Library in Elkton Maryland
12. Library in northeast Maryland
This is 12 accounts and would single handedly win me an election. Combine that with 12ore accounts for pie, 12 accounts for lancelot and 12 for best.korea
That is 48 accounts and that doesn't include the 5 people I sit with in the break room I could convince me to help game the system.
3 months is the limit for patient assholes. Most people willing to cheat aren't going to think more than 90 days out so it will ensure the integrity of the election.
I assume the accounts you got to vote were legitimate accounts and not dummy accounts, but you knew this would be a close election before those accounts were created.
You can fight these things all you want but if the system is going to be gamed and you don't want pie as your next president, it is best to take away P's ability to game the system.
By allowing accounts younger than 3 months, we have a system in place where the biggest cheater wins. that is the opposite of what we want. We want the most ethical person to win in general I assume
-->
@Wylted
Under your system, I, someone who has 21 debates, 46 posts, and an unhealthy amount of time on this site, would be excluded from voting.
An activity-based voting requirement would be far more pertinent. Many people would have the foresight to plan a few months in advance, considering that the presidential election comes at a fixed time every year. Few have the time to maintain an army of active multiaccounts.
-->
@AustinL0926
You can just let the accounts sleep. Yes people like you may be punished, but you have no ideal who me or the madman are and so you don't really have the necessary knowledge to make an informed vote, as evidenced by how you voted incorrectly. (Last sentence is a joke)
Like I said the preplanning while many would be capable of it, most unethical people also lack that much foresight and delayed gratification necessary to game the system in that way
-->
@Wylted
What makes SamStevens, or Vaarka, more qualified to vote than I? Considering how they've been inactive for several years, I doubt they know much about you or RM (or at least your respective platforms).
On principle, any disenfranchisement, without clear and just cause, should be avoided.
-->
@badger
1 million
-->
@AustinL0926
On principle, any disenfranchisement, without clear and just cause, should be avoided.
Sure, but In. The mean time we have to deal with what pragmatically would be best.