We take it in turn to list a fragment from a law.
Then people guess if it's a law from the US (land of the free and home of the brave), China or Russia.
Here i will start, this should be an easy one:
"[A] public officer, employee, or contractor [...] may not release to the public the number of votes cast in the general election for the office of the president"
28 Feb 21
@zahlanzi saidThe good old US of A??
We take it in turn to list a fragment from a law.
Then people guess if it's a law from the US (land of the free and home of the brave), China or Russia.
Here i will start, this should be an easy one:
"[A] public officer, employee, or contractor [...] may not release to the public the number of votes cast in the general election for the office of the president"
28 Feb 21
@averagejoe1 saidSlow down, Joe, you're betraying your ignorance.
DAm Zahlanzi, she didn't even let you off of ground zero. Snarky crowd...but not me.
28 Feb 21
@zahlanzi saidI would presume most Western democracies.
We take it in turn to list a fragment from a law.
Then people guess if it's a law from the US (land of the free and home of the brave), China or Russia.
Here i will start, this should be an easy one:
"[A] public officer, employee, or contractor [...] may not release to the public the number of votes cast in the general election for the office of the president"
There are set rules for who can release what information. Employees and contractors are certainly out of bounds. I don’t know what a public officer is.
So, I’ll say US and Russia.
I would presume the Chinese leader is elected by parliament.
28 Feb 21
@shavixmir said"There are set rules for who can release what information"
I would presume most Western democracies.
There are set rules for who can release what information. Employees and contractors are certainly out of bounds. I don’t know what a public officer is.
So, I’ll say US and Russia.
I would presume the Chinese leader is elected by parliament.
yeh, but it takes a special kind of "democracy" to set it so nobody can release that information.
There is also a special clause i didn't reveal that would have given it away: nobody can reveal the total number of votes until the electors meet and then they can just tell you the percentages. As in "trust us the percentages are true, no need to verify actual numbers".
28 Feb 21
@zahlanzi saidTexas?
"There are set rules for who can release what information"
yeh, but it takes a special kind of "democracy" to set it so nobody can release that information.
There is also a special clause i didn't reveal that would have given it away: nobody can reveal the total number of votes until the electors meet and then they can just tell you the percentages. As in "trust us the percentages are true, no need to verify actual numbers".
01 Mar 21
@handyandy saidOh that cat jumped out of the bag and ran up the curtains a while back Andy.
Slow down, Joe, you're betraying your ignorance.
02 Mar 21
@zahlanzi saidI don't know if it's true but lots of people are saying it: this post is on point. The US election system demands anonymity of votes and a trust in state governments to run elections as they see fit.
We take it in turn to list a fragment from a law.
Then people guess if it's a law from the US (land of the free and home of the brave), China or Russia.
Here i will start, this should be an easy one:
"[A] public officer, employee, or contractor [...] may not release to the public the number of votes cast in the general election for the office of the president"