Agreed that stealing elections is bad and shouldn’t be done.
That said, I don’t actually see anything that would make a large-scale vote invalidation setup like this illegal—as mentioned in the statute linked, you can directly challenge someone’s right to vote in the polling booth. In fact, if you don’t want to fall afoul of targeted voter disenfranchisement laws, you can simply challenge voters uniformly across the state, provided that your previous targeted advertising made it more likely for people of a certain political leaning to have been more likely to render themselves ineligible.
Seems bad that this is possible. Technically, if I’m reading the 14th amendment correctly, it looks like Wisconsin’s representation should be decreased in proportion to how many people bet on the election...
Agreed that stealing elections is bad and shouldn’t be done.
That said, I don’t actually see anything that would make a large-scale vote invalidation setup like this illegal—as mentioned in the statute linked, you can directly challenge someone’s right to vote in the polling booth. In fact, if you don’t want to fall afoul of targeted voter disenfranchisement laws, you can simply challenge voters uniformly across the state, provided that your previous targeted advertising made it more likely for people of a certain political leaning to have been more likely to render themselves ineligible.
Seems bad that this is possible. Technically, if I’m reading the 14th amendment correctly, it looks like Wisconsin’s representation should be decreased in proportion to how many people bet on the election...
No, how many male citizens twenty-one years of age do. Neither the 19th nor the 26th seem to override this.