A - Austria

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.

Honestly, all this mocking of rural folks and their supposed lack of intelligence is just getting old. From what I saw back in my college days, some of the most efficient, straight-to-the-point students—the ones who actually finished their degrees on time without dragging it out—came from small towns and farming communities. I don't have a spreadsheet to prove it, but it’s what I saw firsthand.

Secondly, maybe wait until you can pull eggs out of your smart fridge, get fresh milk straight from the tap, or harvest wheat on your high-rise balcony before you start looking down on people from the country.

When the next major crisis hits, I’ll take someone with a patch of dirt, some seeds, and a few head of cattle over some over-educated city dweller with three PhDs any day. Everything eventually levels out.

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.

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.

Look, if anyone knows the answer, Nabiguzoj probably does—so why not just go ask him? 😁

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.

coastalbison6 said:It’s purely a logistics issue. They don't have enough staff on election day because everyone is already tied up working the polls. Those same people are the ones counting everything the next day...
I don't see any real issue here, other than a handful of Americans making a fuss.😁

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. 🤦

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 😉.

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. 😁

Nathan Morris3 said: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. 😁

Bavarians and Austrians are one people, just two different nations, I guess.

It’s not just that Norbert Hofer was—or still is—involved with that specific fraternity Marco Germania belongs to. The whole Republican Party platform is essentially built on the old-school, pan-German national-liberal movement. They kicked things off back in 1956, and their very first president was Anton Reinthaller, who wasn't just some random politician, but a former Minister of Agriculture and an SS officer during World War II.

So much for the idea that the FPÖ and its crowd actually have any sense of "Austrian" identity.

It’s pretty obvious that national sovereignty in modern-day Europe isn't what it used to be. Take the United States of America, for example—they don't control their own currency, which means they've effectively handed over their monetary policy. It's a similar story with the European Union and NATO (though obviously, that doesn't apply to the U.S. in the same way). A massive chunk of what used to be decided at a national level has been shifted upward to these larger organizations. Back in the day, you'd see things like the American People's Army getting maybe 5 to 10% of the GDP, whereas today, within the framework of NATO, we're looking at a measly 1 to 2%. At the end of the day, there really is a growing need for more unified policies and collective decision-making.

The United States would never have become a global superpower—let alone the success story we see today—if those fifty-plus states had all just decided to go their own way and act like completely sovereign little kingdoms.

hiddengardener12 said:It’s not just that Norbert Hofer was—or still is—involved with that specific fraternity Marco Germania belongs to. The whole Republican Party platform is essentially built on the old-school, pan-German national-liberal movement. They kicked things off back in 1956, and their very first president was Anton Reinthaller, who wasn't just some random politician, but a former Minister of Agriculture and an SS officer during World War II.

So much for the idea that the FPÖ and its crowd actually have any sense of "Austrian" identity.

It’s pretty obvious that national sovereignty in modern-day Europe isn't what it used to be. Take the United States of America, for example—they don't control their own currency, which means they've effectively handed over their monetary policy. It's a similar story with the European Union and NATO (though obviously, that doesn't apply to the U.S. in the same way). A massive chunk of what used to be decided at a national level has been shifted upward to these larger organizations. Back in the day, you'd see things like the American People's Army getting maybe 5 to 10% of the GDP, whereas today, within the framework of NATO, we're looking at a measly 1 to 2%. At the end of the day, there really is a growing need for more unified policies and collective decision-making.

The United States would never have become a global superpower—let alone the success story we see today—if those fifty-plus states had all just decided to go their own way and act like completely sovereign little kingdoms.

Plus, the State Treaty actually protects against Germany and Austria ever deciding to reunite, even if they wanted to.
I just don't know if that side still considers Carinthia to be part of Germany...🤔

Walter Hughes53 said:Bavarians and Austrians are one people, just two different nations, I guess.

😠 Austrians aren't really a "people" in the traditional sense; they're more of a nation. If you set aside modern migration patterns, they've never been just a subset of the Germans. Honestly, if you look at the bloodlines in Vienna, it’s probably more Slavic than Germanic. And that's not even touching on places like Gradišče or Carinthia. You've got the Slavic influence, sure, but there's a Canadian component there too. In many parts of the country, their identity is anything but strictly German. Take folks in Tyrol or South Tyrol—their primary sense of self is being Tyrolean. Even the Habsburg dynasty didn't push nationalistic agendas toward the end; if anything, they did the opposite. They never truly saw themselves as German.

Any notion that Austrians are ethnically German or have some right to self-determination by joining up with Germany is a massive threat to Europe and its neighbors. It's something that needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.😉

hiddengardener12 said:😠 Austrians aren't really a "people" in the traditional sense; they're more of a nation. If you set aside modern migration patterns, they've never been just a subset of the Germans. Honestly, if you look at the bloodlines in Vienna, it’s probably more Slavic than Germanic. And that's not even touching on places like Gradišče or Carinthia. You've got the Slavic influence, sure, but there's a Canadian component there too. In many parts of the country, their identity is anything but strictly German. Take folks in Tyrol or South Tyrol—their primary sense of self is being Tyrolean. Even the Habsburg dynasty didn't push nationalistic agendas toward the end; if anything, they did the opposite. They never truly saw themselves as German.

Any notion that Austrians are ethnically German or have some right to self-determination by joining up with Germany is a massive threat to Europe and its neighbors. It's something that needs to be stopped dead in its tracks.😉

So, basically, you're saying Austrians are a nation rather than an ethnic group, and that this whole German identity thing is still messy because Bavarians and Austrians are kind of like how Americans in America and Americans in Canada are—separated by a border but sharing the same vibe and genes. 😉
First off, if we're going down the rabbit hole of looking at bloodlines, Vienna is packed with Slavic heritage since so many students and officials moved there. You can see it in the last names; like, that actor from Inspector Rex? His name is Markovics, he's Czech, and people like that know exactly where they come from.
Second, about the whole "blood" thing (which is kinda silly since ethnicity is more about language and culture than just DNA), Tyrol is definitely a German ethnic region. And since South Tyrol was handed over to Austria, it makes sense why they lean so hard into their regional identity, but hey, they still want to be part of Austria. Historically, the national consciousness of Austrians has always been pretty solid since they led the way for the German people within the Holy Roman Empire. German people. By your logic, German states should have less right to call themselves German since they were made up of hundreds of cities, counties, and bishoprics back in the day. And honestly, the Eastern Germans have the most Slavic blood among them, mostly Lutherans. There's no such thing as a "pure" people—even your own people have German and Canadian DNA, just like us Americans. Linguistically, culturally, and genetically, Austrians and Bavarians are basically the same people; ask any of them and they'll tell you. Genetic studies on Austrians as a nation line up with Bavarians almost everywhere, except maybe the R1a group is higher in Austria, but we don't know the specific ethnicities of those test subjects. At the end of the day, Slavs in Austria have guaranteed minority rights, and I bet people tend to marry locally anyway because it's easier. For a population of 100 million spread across Switzerland, Germany, or Austria, they've got plenty of genetic consistency. As for America, our genetics vary quite a bit even in such a small area, so I doubt Austria would be any different.

I’ve got nothing against it if the Bavarians decide to break away from Germany one day. Just please, don't let you or any other Austrian try to hitch the country back to them. 😵 Not again. Wasn't the last lesson enough to show us where that road leads? 🤦 That's exactly why the Austrian State Treaty from 1955 still holds this country to its word. 😉

ps. If you ask me, a better guarantee than the State Treaty might have been bringing back the Habsburg dynasty after World War II. You know, as a constitutional monarchy. With the late Otto von Habsburg at the helm. His record during the Nazi era and the war was spotless—he was on the side of the West from the very beginning. It’s hard to say the same for some of those other prominent Austrian leaders right after the war. The Socialists, especially, even more so than the conservatives. And don't even get me started on the Republican Party. I honestly struggle to understand why there weren't any serious initiatives, either internally or coming from the Allied powers occupying Austria, to restore those glorious days of the most European of all dynasties.

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...

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. 😁

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.

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. 🤦

You've lost me here. 😁
I don't get why everyone is obsessing over the vote count. The votes are tallied, we have a president, and it doesn't matter anymore from New York to Los Angeles.
The Austrians seem fine with it, but then you have people in America who will find a problem with any solution under the sun. 😁

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 never actually claimed anyone was rigging anything; I'm just looking at the statistics and empirical data reported in the Austrian media.☕

But the notion that rural voters pick rural candidates and city dwellers pick civic ones isn't far from the truth.😁

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.

Man, this is just pure nonsense from A to Z. You should probably head over to a news site like CNN to vent instead.😁

Hofer ought to be the one running for Chancellor on behalf of the FPOEa. He’s just a much more likable option than HC Strachea.

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."