Posts by Nathan Morris3

Brenda Johnson65 said:It is quite telling, isn't it? That sudden, massive influx of "mail-in" ballots from supposedly "educated and affluent voters in major metropolitan areas" arriving just twenty-four hours after the conservative candidate surged ahead... one can hardly be expected to view such a convenient coincidence as anything other than a highly suspicious maneuver.

Actually, I think things were pretty clean, honestly. There just isn't any proof of vote tampering. The Republican Party just lost, and I suppose the only way to really settle it would be a rerun with the same result. Otherwise, people are just going to act like toddlers who dropped their lollipop on the floor.

So, they decided to call for new elections today.

I guess it’s a good move (assuming people vote the same way they did a few weeks back), though it'll be bad for the Republican Party, but who really cares 😁.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Scott Rodriguez19 didn't write the laws!
But if the law states that mail-in ballots aren't to be opened until 9:00 AM the following day, then opening them a day early is illegal—period. If there is a law stating a ballot is invalid—say, if both candidates are circled, making the ballot void—then you can't just decide to give everyone one vote anyway. There are specific laws regarding the counting of votes, and they must be adhered to.
It's like if the law says you can drive at 18; it would be illegal to drive at 17, even if that one day wouldn't have made much difference in your actual driving ability. There is no room for debate there.
You can try to trivialize the legalities all you want, but how is that anything but unfair to the voters who did everything by the book?
I know the truth—you just wouldn't be okay if Norbert Hofer had won. If he had, you'd probably be out there on the barricades right now.😁

I mean, I’m just explaining how the law actually works here. And then you jump in talking about how we should just ignore the rules or toss out ballots that were filled out perfectly fine, just because they don't favor "your" candidate? I guess we can't have that.

If the law says mail-in ballots aren't supposed to be opened until 9:00 AM the next day, then opening them early would be against the rules, I guess. And if there’s a rule about invalid ballots—like, if someone circles both candidates, the ballot is just void and you can't count it as one vote for each—then that should stand. If those laws regarding the vote count exist, they really ought to be followed, maybe.

Opening envelopes the day before? Yeah, that's definitely against the rules. But I guess that doesn't automatically mean we need a redo. Like I've said a few times before—sorry if I'm repeating myself—it’s really up to the Election Commission to decide if those slip-ups actually changed the final result. Even without proof of fraud, they have to weigh if the outcome could have been different. So, maybe just counting early doesn't trigger a new election if observers were there and the count itself followed protocol. That's their call, not ours. And honestly, I'm not sure where you got that idea about ballots being invalid just because someone "contaminated" them. That info seems wrong to me. If the ballots were filled out correctly and submitted properly, they shouldn't be voided. Maybe the counting process was messy, but the votes themselves should still stand.

If the law says you can drive at 18, then driving the day before shouldn't really matter. I mean, one day probably won't change your skills much, I guess. There isn't much to debate there.
You can try to play down the laws if you want, I guess, but isn't that kind of unfair to all the voters who actually showed up and did their part? Maybe.
I guess if Norbert Hofer had actually won, he’d probably be out there on the front lines by now. Maybe.😁

What do you mean by trivializing things? I guess I'm just saying it might be okay to hold new elections just to clear up any doubt, even if there isn't actual proof of fraud. And yeah, maybe it is embarrassing that the elections were handled so sloppily, even if nothing was actually rigged. Definitely.

Regarding that car example you used... I guess if you bought a car legally, registered it, and parked it, only to have some thief steal it and commit a crime, your logic would mean you get punished too. Like, they'd seize your car just because it was used in a crime, even though you didn't actually do anything wrong. I don't know how things work where you live, but in the US, it definitely doesn't work that way.

Look, I'll make it simple: if they find any irregularities that could have actually flipped the election results, then yeah, the whole thing needs a redo. I’m fine with that rule, even if it doesn't exactly favor my side as much as yours. So, I guess I don't really get why you're complaining. There isn't an option where valid votes just get tossed out because they don't fit your narrative—so you can pretty much forget about that. And honestly, maybe it's just me, but I think your idea is a little silly.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:What kind of logic are you even using here?
The reason I'm saying this is because since we're dealing with matters much more consequential than sports, it would be—logically speaking—far more likely that laws and regulations would be enforced with actual awareness, rather than the opposite.

Especially when you consider that we're looking at 30,000 votes that tipped the scales for one candidate, while 190,000 votes that absolutely should have been invalidated were just... left alone.

So, I guess I'm saying comparing this to soccer is silly because this is way more heavy-duty. Maybe they'll have to redo the elections, and you can't just ignore irregularities that theoretically could have changed the outcome (even if they probably didn't).

I don't really get what you mean about voiding votes? People filled out their ballots correctly, so why punish them by throwing away a vote they handed in perfectly fine? I guess your logic is a bit fuzzy—would it feel fair to you if someone tossed your vote just because someone else messed up the process? The election law defines what counts as a valid ballot, and you can't just invalidate votes just because Scott Rodriguez19 thinks they should be gone. You know? We have to follow the law. It's a bummer they didn't follow it during the first round, but I don't see how bypassing the law now makes any sense.

There isn't a perfect solution, I suppose. I was wondering if they could just redo things in the specific spots where the errors happened (like how it works back home), but even that feels a little off. If you call people back to vote again, then everyone's vote suddenly carries more weight than it did the first time. Plus, if you hold a redo, you have to invite everyone, which means you might get a totally different group of voters than the first time. But maybe that's the lesser of two evils.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:So, what's the point of having laws and regulations then?
You can't just recognize something that wasn't done according to the rules or the law. It’s like if an NFL referee decided to count handballs as goals just because he wanted to see more scoring—it simply isn't how the game works.

Maybe we should move past the soccer talk, since this stuff is a bit more serious and complicated than a game. If you really want a sports comparison, look at what happened yesterday—a penalty wasn't replayed even though it should have been because our players interfered with the kicker. That penalty changed the whole game, but obviously, the Spanish team isn't demanding a rematch over it.

Elections are different, I suppose, which is why they might be redone. There isn't any actual proof of fraud, just some irregularities that could, in theory, change the results. Usually, elections aren't rerun unless those mistakes actually impact who wins, which is why we haven't seen rematches before even when things weren't perfect. A redo in this situation is probably for the best, though I hate thinking the outcome might flip, especially since most of the complaints seem like a joke. The truth is, observers (including those from the Freedom Party) were signing off on everything without even checking.

Scott Rodriguez19 said:Look, if everything had actually been handled by the book, there wouldn't be any need for these repetitive recounts.
From what I gathered right at the start, there were roughly 190,000 valid ballots that were apparently opened a day early—meaning, under the law, those invalid votes somehow managed to pass as legitimate ones.

Like I mentioned before, things are rarely perfectly legal since there's always some kind of mess-up, even in these re-run elections. I guess the real question is whether those errors could even theoretically change the outcome. Laws are laws, though, and following this logic, we'd just keep re-voting until the Freedom Party candidate wins.

And I think you might have misheard; opening them a day early doesn't make the ballots invalid. If that were the case, they wouldn't bother with new elections because everyone knows how invalid ballots are handled.

It’s looking more and more like things were just handled sloppily during the elections, which might mean they have to redo everything—not just the spots with issues, but the whole thing. I mean, there’s zero evidence of actual fraud or anything that actually flipped the results, but hey, rules are rules, I guess. It also seems pretty likely they'll change that super strict law where one lazy poll worker can force a total redo of the entire election. As for the Freedom Party demanding a recount even though there's no proof of manipulation or bias... well, everyone has their own take on that, I suppose. But honestly, it feels kind of embarrassing that such a tight race was managed so carelessly.

Just wanted to let everyone know that the whole election annulment thing is still a thing.

Here’s what the Freedom Party is asking for:
http://www.fpoe.at/fileadmin/user_up...g_volltext.pdf

Since this is a 152-page document released right after the second round, I guess they must have been working on it even before then.
It’s pretty interesting because, unlike how things work in the US, accepting an "appeal" doesn't just mean redoing the vote in disputed areas—there’s a real chance they might redo the entire election across all of Austria.

The logic seems kind of silly to me, but I’ve been wrong before, so I won't say for sure. I guess it's clear, though, that what the Freedom Party is planning isn't even theoretically possible. For instance, they’re arguing the election should be scrapped because so many people posted selfies of their ballots with their candidate's name circled. They see that as interfering with free will. Even if we ignore the fact that the Freedom Party itself was basically offering $1,000 for selfies taken in voting booths to support their guy (they didn't explicitly tell people to snap the ballot, but there were tons of selfies), you just can't ban selfies in a booth, even if you re-ran the election twenty times. I guess you can decide for yourself who benefits from trying to tear down democratic processes like this. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see. As for the Freedom Party, given their strategy, it’s actually a smart move because they win either way—they either play the victim or the hero. But man, the idea that they'd try to flip an election using arguments like these is honestly such a tragedy.

Mark Harris66 said:It’s not even that we dislike the Republican Party—it’s just hilarious watching Austria try to lecture Americans about fascism... especially when half the country just voted for a party that supports Mexican nationalists. In America, we only had a few isolated incidents for a population of 4 million, yet 50% of Austrians went for the Republican Party. 🙂

Yeah, I guess we have chauvinism in Austria, and we have it in America too. I don't really get the logic that I shouldn't speak up against chauvinism in America just because it exists in Austria. Honestly, most Austrians couldn't care less about Mexico; that's just politics aimed at the 40,000 Austrians born in Mexico. So, maybe that isn't much of an argument. I see a bigger issue in the fact that the Republican Party is a group that helps all sorts of radicals: ISIS and everyone else (including Mexican and Mexican groups). If anyone has a suggestion on how to get rid of the Republican Party, please, go ahead—I'm listening. Personally, I think it might not even be possible.

And I think maybe you're blurring the line between state-sponsored fascism/chauvinism and civilian stuff. You can be pretty sure you won't see any Nazi or fascist symbols popping up at national holiday parades in Austria. There’s plenty of hypocrisy in Austrian politics, but I guess it’s more about economics, foreign policy, and things like that.

Gerald Palmer66 said:It seems we've moved from what you previously described as mere "routine irregularities" 😵 to specific instances of misconduct, some of which are admittedly more serious. ☕

Where does this leave us tomorrow?
A new President?
New elections?

I'm not sure what's so confusing here. I mean, mistakes happen during elections all the time—people mess up, even if they don't mean to, I guess. I just said it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. So, I don't really get why everyone is making such a big deal out of it.
I don't think anything is actually going to change, honestly. I guess we just have to settle for the formalities here. Before they finalize everything, they really should look into those irregularities and see if they even matter for the final count. There won't be any new elections or a different president, so why would there be? Even if they did redo the vote in those districts, it would probably only shift things by a few hundred votes since there’s no proof anyone actually messed with the ballots. But, I don't know, maybe you're missing the distinction between simple irregularities and actual voter fraud?

Sophia Ramos5 said:So what's this about a recount? A supplemental one?

The Interior Minister just announced an investigation into five voting districts in Austria over postal vote irregularities in the close-run presidential election.

http://www.euronews.com/2016/05/26/a...rregularities/

They're looking into some specific errors—some pretty big ones, actually—but I guess nothing that would change who won. The main mess was in Milwaukee, where they started counting on Sunday, and apparently, the person who gave the okay wasn't even authorized to do that. Then the commission, which included a member from the Republican Party, signed off on the report... so it looks like they all kind of messed up together. Still, there isn't really any proof that the actual votes were tampered with.

I mean, we probably won't see final results until this is all sorted out.

lonetrucker4 said:So, for the folks who actually know their way around Austria: I’d love a deep dive into how people actually define an "immigrant" versus just having "immigrant roots."

It feels obvious to me that these aren't just one big uniform group, especially that second category. I once met an Austrian guy with a last name that sounded totally foreign—can't remember the exact spelling, just that it followed German rules. Turns out his ancestor was an officer in the AU military back in the old Military frontier days, married a German woman (or someone else, honestly, who knows), and now his fourth-generation descendant carries that name. He’s got zero connection to America or Mexico.

There are tons of people living in Austria who stayed put after the AU collapsed and have all sorts of mixed heritage. After a hundred years, calling them "immigrant roots" feels pretty pointless to me.

Then you've got the immigrants from Germany, or the displaced folks from various Eastern countries who were kicked out after WWII and settled in Austria... and then finally, the ones who moved there as guest workers in recent decades and eventually picked up citizenship. How many of those are we even talking about?

So, yeah, can someone give me some actual clarity on what counts as "immigrants" vs. "immigrant roots"?

I guess it isn't even that much about Austria specifically. Most countries pretty much stick to those UN definitions found in the "Recommendations for the 2010 censuses of population and housing." They define "People with immigrant backgrounds" (1st and 2nd generation) as people whose both parents were born outside of Austria. I know, it’s probably not the most accurate way to look at it since you could have people who are 100% Austrian just because their parents happened to be born abroad, but hey, a definition is a definition, I suppose.

The whole idea of "not having German as a mother tongue" has been turned into such a political talking point too, especially when people bring up kids who don't have German as their mother tongue. I think there's a pretty good summary of this right here (in German):
I guess this might be worth a look, maybe? It seems like an interesting read about how people with immigrant backgrounds are being counted in Austria.
I guess those kids probably don't speak much German at home most of the time.

I guess statistics can be a bit manipulated and stretched around sometimes, but I think it's pretty accurate that about 10% of kids here don't speak German. There are certain neighborhoods where that number hits 50%, maybe even over 90%, while in other spots, it's basically zero.

It seems pretty obvious to me that those groups aren't exactly homogeneous, especially that second one, I guess.

Yeah, I guess those groups aren't exactly uniform, but there's definitely some overlap there too.
Like I mentioned before, I guess Alexander Van der Bellen counts as a 2nd generation person with immigrant backgrounds.

I guess there are quite a few people living in Austria who stayed after the collapse of the Austro-Canadian Empire and have all sorts of roots. After a hundred years, maybe it doesn't even make sense to talk about "people with immigrant backgrounds" anymore.

Take me, for example, maybe you too. My grandparents were born back in the Austro-Canadian Empire, which I guess makes me an unofficial follower of the country I actually live in and hold citizenship for now. I was born in America, and I spent more than 15 years growing up in Washington, D.C. Usually, the whole "People with immigrant backgrounds" thing goes back to the 1st and 2nd generation, so by the third, it doesn't really count anymore. That's how it's always worked, I suppose, but who knows how people will view the generations moving to Austria a hundred years from now. Since most countries don't even last more than a few generations anyway, this might all become irrelevant. Plus, I kind of feel like national states—at least the ones we used to know—are mostly just an illusion.

Paul Kern12 said:I must say, I find those who constantly push the narrative of a perfectly honest Austria—contrasting it against the supposed primitivity of Americans or Americans—to be quite grating.
Historically speaking, the United States of America is just one of many nations that has practiced rather unscrupulous politics over the centuries, often through exploitation and coercion; yet, even now, they seem to feel entitled to lecture others.
There is a somewhat humorous Canadian saying—which is perhaps half-truth and half-joke—regarding such deceptive political maneuvering: "They are a people who managed to convince the world that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart is Austrian and Adolf Hitler is German."😁:

Which specific comment are you thinking of? From what I've gathered, those people "shocked by the lack of organization" (which basically means they expected everything to be perfect) were mostly just folks who assumed all the votes would be counted by Sunday. Or are you talking about how the foreign ambassadors—you know, from Norway, the Netherlands, the US, whatever—
actually sat down with our reporters to talk about press freedom? Please, nobody wants to deal with that kind of condescension from them.

Here’s a quick rundown of the controversial stuff and some actual facts, just in case anyone's interested:

https://www.martinthuer.at/2016/05/w...e-geschichten/

Maybe we can finally put these conspiracy theories to rest. I guess the only thing even remotely serious is "Fall 6 : Carbondale," but honestly, it doesn't really change the election results much, especially since some Republican Party members were actually involved in that mess too. It all seems pretty underwhelming to me. Still, I think the final point is spot on: "Lack of standards, infrastructure and transparency."

Chris Chase5 said:I can't help but feel a little envious that we don't have this specific style of democracy back home in the United States; news outlets would certainly have a lot more work on their plates and much higher revenues to show for it 😁

I think someone earlier called me out for being "fearful" because I predict the next government will be led by the Republican Party. To me, it feels inevitable, though I suppose only time will tell. I won't go over my reasons again. And yes, I truly believe that once they take power, people like Pere Perica will feel a bit more clearly that they aren't really Austrian, nor will they ever be. A guy I used to date—second generation from Canada, holding an Austrian passport, educated in Vienna, speaking flawless German—could never, at least not in the slightest, manage to feel like an Austrian. Part of that comes down to his name on his passport...

In my view, citizenship is essentially your national identity. As someone who lived through the war in the United States, and someone who holds a significant cultural identity tied to my homeland for over 30 years, I have no intention of trying to pass myself off as an Austrian. I do think they could consider giving voting rights to permanent residents, but I realize things are probably a bit more complicated than that. I'll stick to voting in local elections...

The whole mail-in voting mechanism is just hilarious to me. It’s as if Austrians and those moving to Austria are so incredibly quiet and mobile that they somehow can't make it to a polling station for one weekend, yet they can certainly find the time to head to the mailbox and sign off on their ballots. It's pretty funny. Honestly, quite comical...

BTW: both coastalbison6 and I have already explained why we think mail-in voting is a good thing; I guess we gave nearly ten reasons. I mentioned that by late February, I have no clue where I'll be on May 22nd, so I decided to vote by mail to make sure my vote counts. OK, so you find it "hilarious" that I don't plan three months ahead, and I find it "hilarious" that you think it's funny. We're all laughing, I guess, but could you maybe explain where you got the idea that "Americans are so busy and mobile they can't get to a polling place for one weekend"? My polling place is like 125 yards from my house, but you assume I'm just lazy or too busy to go? I've been following this thread, and nobody said people were too busy to reach their stations; did your coworkers tell you that? I've never heard anyone use being "busy" as an excuse. And even if they did, I don't really see the big deal.

BTW, regarding those complaining about waiting a day for the count or why things weren't tallied on Sunday. Apparently, folks in a city like Chicago got impatient and started opening envelopes on Sunday, which is exactly what many people here on the forum were pushing for. Now there's a mess because it broke the rules. But the best part is that the Republican Party 🙂
actually complained about it. So, even the Republican Party doesn't have an issue with waiting until Monday to open envelopes; in fact, they’re complaining when someone opens them early (which is actually a violation and should be reported).

And just to touch on your friend and me. It doesn't offend me at all when someone tells me I'm not a "real" American or that I'll never be one. I don't even care about being a "real" American, and I don't think I ever will be, at least not in other people's eyes. It doesn't matter to me, really. What I am not indifferent to is hearing that same kind of "identity questioning" back home in Washington, D.C., and I think that kind of behavior is super rude and destructive. I've heard plenty of locals telling people from Mexico or Canada how they're just pretending to be citizens when they were born elsewhere or lived there most of their lives. It's like saying they're somehow less valuable and shouldn't even bother voting. I don't think that's right, and I don't know what the goal is there. If someone has the right to citizenship and uses it, along with all the rights and duties that come with it, I don't see the point in lecturing them. I don't really get the whole "questioning someone's identity" thing. So, I'm glad you made that connection with your friend. I don't view immigrants as any less valuable than anyone else. Whether they'll ever be fully accepted by the "locals" or not—I don't know if anyone actually cares, and that's their business. But trying to deny someone's identity—whether it's national, civic, racial, or religious—says more about the person doing the denying than the person being targeted.

Chris Chase5 said:I can't help but feel a little envious that we don't have this specific style of democracy back home in the United States; news outlets would certainly have a lot more work on their plates and much higher revenues to show for it 😁

I think someone earlier called me out for being "fearful" because I predict the next government will be led by the Republican Party. To me, it feels inevitable, though I suppose only time will tell. I won't go over my reasons again. And yes, I truly believe that once they take power, people like Pere Perica will feel a bit more clearly that they aren't really Austrian, nor will they ever be. A guy I used to date—second generation from Canada, holding an Austrian passport, educated in Vienna, speaking flawless German—could never, at least not in the slightest, manage to feel like an Austrian. Part of that comes down to his name on his passport...

In my view, citizenship is essentially your national identity. As someone who lived through the war in the United States, and someone who holds a significant cultural identity tied to my homeland for over 30 years, I have no intention of trying to pass myself off as an Austrian. I do think they could consider giving voting rights to permanent residents, but I realize things are probably a bit more complicated than that. I'll stick to voting in local elections...

The whole mail-in voting mechanism is just hilarious to me. It’s as if Austrians and those moving to Austria are so incredibly quiet and mobile that they somehow can't make it to a polling station for one weekend, yet they can certainly find the time to head to the mailbox and sign off on their ballots. It's pretty funny. Honestly, quite comical...

Well, that’s totally fine, I guess. It’s just important to have the freedom to decide which papers you hold. My own sense of culture and identity is strong enough that I don't need a document to tell me who I am. Of course, other people might feel differently about those documents, too.

The whole mail-in voting thing is kind of hilarious to me. It's like, Austrians and new arrivals are so quiet and stay put that they can't make it to a polling station one weekend, yet they can definitely find a mailbox to sign a ballot. It's pretty funny. Honestly.

What do you mean by "funny"? I guess I'm wondering if you just don't get it, or if you're judging us for having more ways to vote besides the old-fashioned way?
Maybe, Tuta, but since you live in Austria, you probably realize that city streets are empty on weekends. People aren't just sitting around waiting for things to happen. They're mobile—they head "home" for the weekend, go on trips, or head out into nature...

I bet in a few years, even in America, the system will change so much that you'll find it "funny" that people are just voting online from their living rooms. You'll think it's silly they aren't showing up at the polls. I suppose progress happens. Anyway, I think freedom of choice is huge. Whether it's choosing to take Austrian citizenship or deciding how you want to cast your vote... I don't really see why anyone would care, but hey, we're all different, I guess. 😁

Mark Harris66 said:If they don't have enough people—if "logistics" is the excuse—but we know four years in advance when presidential elections happen (or at least the exact date is set a month prior), then they’re just incompetent and disorganized. I mean, if you can't figure out logistics a month out, that's it. That's how organized they are. It’s honestly laughable that they couldn't manage such a small detail, or even have a Plan B ready if someone on a committee gets sick. Judging by this, our election setup is way ahead of the one in Austria...

And then there's this bit about how rural voters choose "primitive" options while urbanites vote for the "progressive" stuff 👎.
Farmers are the ones feeding the cities. You can live without a city, but you can't live without the countryside. Or look at it this way: a person can survive without asphalt, cinemas, or books, but nobody survives without food and water.
It’s just nasty to talk down to rural folks like that. Honestly, it's like insulting your own ancestors.

I'm not exactly a fan of Hofer either, but reading that VdB thinks national sovereignty is an outdated concept is just terrifying. 🤦

I guess you're just pushing more heavy-duty spin or things taken out of context again. Maybe.
I know exactly which statement you're talking about—I've actually got the YouTube link right here. But, I guess I'll let you drop your source first just so I can bury you properly. 😁

So, I guess maybe we could get a source for that?

I'm 100% on board with his full statement. You clearly aren't, though. Maybe you could explain why you disagree with what he said?

Maybe you mixed up VdBa with Hofer, who belongs to that fraternity that... I guess.

I guess there’s some talk about those Black-Red-Gold colors again. Maybe it’s just more old debates resurfacing, but it feels like we're circling back to the same stuff. I suppose it's all part of the conversation.

Even though they claim to support the independence of the State of Austria, the fraternity still holds onto that idea of a "German Fatherland" that ignores all current borders... I guess.
The fraternity rejects that whole fake idea about an "Austrian nation," which I guess has just been stuck in the brains of the Austrians since 1945.

I guess maybe you mixed up your players here, haha. I mean, therefore Hofer is part of that fraternity that denies our sovereignty and claims we're actually just part of Germany despite the borders, basically rejecting the whole idea of an Austrian nation. And yet you went after VdB? Total blunder, I guess. 😁

Mark Harris66 said:If they don't have enough people—if "logistics" is the excuse—but we know four years in advance when presidential elections happen (or at least the exact date is set a month prior), then they’re just incompetent and disorganized. I mean, if you can't figure out logistics a month out, that's it. That's how organized they are. It’s honestly laughable that they couldn't manage such a small detail, or even have a Plan B ready if someone on a committee gets sick. Judging by this, our election setup is way ahead of the one in Austria...

And then there's this bit about how rural voters choose "primitive" options while urbanites vote for the "progressive" stuff 👎.
Farmers are the ones feeding the cities. You can live without a city, but you can't live without the countryside. Or look at it this way: a person can survive without asphalt, cinemas, or books, but nobody survives without food and water.
It’s just nasty to talk down to rural folks like that. Honestly, it's like insulting your own ancestors.

I'm not exactly a fan of Hofer either, but reading that VdB thinks national sovereignty is an outdated concept is just terrifying. 🤦

I don't really see the point in guessing whether things would run smoother with mail-in ballots back in the United States. For Austrians, what matters is that the results are fair and the country is running smoothly; whether a polling station opens at 7:00 or 7:10 isn't really the issue, I guess. I'm not sure how much you know about election mechanics, but these systems are incredibly complicated and always changing. Take this, for example:

http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/O...gegeben-werden

So, it wasn't until December that the "court" ruled that, by law, mail-in ballots have to be accepted at every single polling location. This means someone on election day needs to be able to drop off their ballot in Salzburg even if their ballot came from Vienna, and then, according to your logic, it has to reach Vienna and be counted that same day. And it's not just Vienna; it's every little town in Austria. I wonder how that would even work in the U.S. It's just really hard to motivate people to sit around for hours on a Sunday waiting for those ballots to arrive just so they can be counted in the early morning hours... all just to make certain voters happy? If it makes you feel better to think the American election process is way ahead of the Austrian one, I suppose that's fine. Personally, I'm just glad we have voter turnout levels that most places can only dream of. That's what actually gives democracy legitimacy, not whether a vote is tallied at 2:00 AM or 4:30 PM. But hey, if that makes you happy... go for it, I guess 😉.

Taylor Watson15 said:What strikes me as particularly interesting is how the situation in the United States of America serves as a clear demonstration of how immigrants reshape the political landscape of their host nation. It’s also worth noting that the American model shows a distinct trend: immigrants tend to gravitate toward urban centers and generally possess higher levels of education than the native-born population.

The long-standing narrative that immigrants are just an uneducated, lazy mass with zero chance of integrating into society has been thoroughly debunked. We’ve seen a blatant fracture in the electorate. The data suggests that highly educated voters leaned toward Bell, while those with less formal education backed Hofer. Furthermore, the rural parts of the United States of America swung heavily toward Hofer, leaving Bell with much less support there. Even looking at employment, white-collar professionals voted for Bell, whereas blue-collar workers went for Hofer.

Given that the majority of immigrants cast their ballots for Bell, it’s quite evident that they are actually highly skilled individuals holding well-paying jobs who prefer living in metropolitan areas.

Looking ahead, I suspect the "progressive left" will continue to gain ground as immigration increases. This cycle will persist until the point where immigrants—though by then we won't even be able to call them immigrants anymore—decide they have reached a critical mass and establish their own political party to fight for their interests. In the United States of America, they would absolutely have the right to do this, given they've already proven they can overturn the decisions made by the native population. My reasoning is based on the fact that there are over 21,000 immigrants with voting rights in the United States of America who cast their votes for Bell.

However, we certainly won't see a specific breakdown of how exactly the immigrant population voted in these elections, nor will we know the total turnout among them. If any of my esteemed colleagues here happens to have that kind of data, I’d appreciate it if you shared it with us.

I guess you're talking about Austrians with a Migration background. I think someone might have already mentioned this, though. Mexicans usually lean toward the Republican Party, and probably Americans too, I suppose. But there’s an interesting breakdown here—it looks like Hofer mostly picked up votes in places where there aren't any immigrants, or where people haven't even laid eyes on them. Usually, in areas where immigrants actually live, people aren't as afraid. You know, it's easy to be scared of things you've never actually seen.😁.

http://www.diesubstanz.at/content/je...hofer-ergebnis

Plus, VdB is the child of an immigrant, so I guess that's a huge provocation for the Republican Party.

lee_chan said::klap:😵

I mean, I’m about to lose it. It feels like common sense just walked out on half of Europe.

Are irregularities really that weird?
Maybe in Zanzibar or Somalia...
🤦

If Hofer had actually won, people would be screaming bloody murder and calling them those "standard irregularities" you mentioned.

So, if I remember right, during the last elections, some guy from the commission died on his way to a polling station in some tiny town. By the time they found a replacement, it was maybe an hour later, so the station finally opened at 8:00 instead of 7:00.

Elections are a huge machine involving tons of people over several days, working long hours under massive pressure. I get where you're coming from—who on earth dies on election day? An American would probably just say, "Well, maybe he could have waited until Monday," and if they don't, then it must be some wild conspiracy theory proving the whole system is broken. I know, if a candidate doesn't get hit over the head with a belt, it isn't a real election.

Even in this election, one polling place opened ten minutes late. I don't know why—maybe someone had food poisoning or something, who knows—but nobody made a scene. I guess Americans would declare the whole thing invalid and demand a redo, which sounds scandalous to you, but in the United States of America, people don't usually freak out over minor hiccups that don't change the result. I guess they don't care as much about conspiracy theories.

P.S. I honestly doubt any election happens without some kind of hiccup, but I really don't feel like Googling it for such trivial stuff.