- It should be noted that as an Australian, whether or not he has a preference doesn't have much bearing on the matter, as his preference is not taken into account in the election itself. See Voting rights in the United States, or more specifically Right of foreigners to vote in the United States, which notes that "Since 1996, a federal law has prohibited non-citizens from voting in federal elections," This status has actually existed (as noted in that article) since 1926, as effectively all 50 states individually had by then banned non-citizens from voting in the U.S. --Jayron32 22:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- An individual vote has got to be the least powerful way to influence a US Presidential election. Assange seems to be trying to influence the election in Trumps favor, as our article on him states: 'On 22 July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails and files sent from or received by Democratic National Committee (DNC). The New York Times reported that "Assange accused Mrs. Clinton of having been among those pushing to indict him..." and that he had timed the release to coincide with the 2016 Democratic National Convention.' StuRat (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And in one sentence, you've just captured the entirety of what is wrong with the U.S. election system. The stark reality of your first statement, and the implications of it for U.S. democracy, has left me in an existential crisis that will require at least 3 beers to dig out of... --Jayron32 23:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The degree to which US elections are influenced by other factors, such as Gerrymandering, voter suppression, campaign donations, and now, foreign interference, may be higher than elsewhere, but the vote of an individual isn't very likely to influence the results of an election anywhere. Even if it did come down to one vote deciding the election, there's enough gray area for it to end up in the courts when it's that close, due to hanging chads, etc. StuRat (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be completely fair on that point, it isn't "now, foreign influence" which has been a major concern, unless by "now" you mean "since before the U.S. even had their first presidential election". Foreign influence over U.S. electoral process is extensively covered as a MAJOR concern among the writers of the U.S. constitution, and is a major topic of discourse in The Federalist Papers. SO much so it was basically the entire subject of the first four non-introductory Federalist Papers (Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5), as well as forming a significant discourse in other papers, i.e. the repeated references to the Partitions of Poland as being an undesirous effect of foreign influence on the security of a nation-state (Nos. 14, 19, 22, 39). --Jayron32 23:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It was always a concern, yes, but hackers now have a tool which could quite possible change the outcome of an election (at least if Trump was a serious candidate and the race was close). StuRat (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to be fair, people have always had the tools to swing U.S. elections. Those tools tended to be green and have pictures of dead politicians on them. See United States presidential election, 1960#Controversies for a famous recent example. Also see Corrupt Bargain for no less than 3 other examples. --Jayron32 23:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are those examples of foreign influence deciding an election ? And 1960 = recent ? :-) StuRat (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be more concerned that the various hacks the Russians are doing are merely tests before they hack into the vote-counting machines in battleground states and change the results in order to elect whatever sap they want in whatever office. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
