re: #275 researchok

How would you even divine that form what I said or cited?

Dude. You quoted me saying that you were concerned about people being coerced to vote, and objected to it. Now you’re objecting to me saying you’re not concerned about it. Which is it?

Maybe it’d be instructive to look at an actual example of coercion.

There are workplaces, as we’ve seen, where the business owners or executives are telling their workforce how they should vote. Of course, since the vote is blind, they have no way of telling if they did vote that way, so there can be no direct reprisals. However, it’s a very clear statement about what management considers to be ‘right’, and if you go around espousing political views that are opposite to that, then you can be identified and you can be discriminated against at work, and it can be very hard to prove. That’s a case of coercion. It’s also currently legal, thanks to CU.

There may be cases of coercion against the mentally handicapped too, it’s possible. It’s possible against most classes of people. But assisting them to vote is not related to coercion to vote in a certain direction, and I don’t know why anyone would assume that it was. The doctor you’re quoting doesn’t seem to understand that these people are, in fact, competent to vote.