SPAM phone calls have gotten out of hand. (Source: FTC: "Unwanted calls – including illegal and spoofed robocalls - are the FCC's top consumer complaint and our top consumer protection priority. " https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/stop-unwanted-robocalls-and-texts )

Despite being the FTC's "top consumer protection priority" (Source: see above), the volume seems undiminished (Source: https://www.truecaller.com/us-spam-stats warning--this is actually a site selling anti-SPAM software. Admittedly anecdotal, but my personal SPAM volume greatly exceeds the "8 per user per month" stated in this source: mine is more like 10-20 per DAY.)

Given the FTC's assertion about this being their "top consumer complaint" I am surprised that (AFAIK) some enterprising elected official hasn't gone after this issue. Or have they?

What new legislation has been proposed to address the problem? What has prevented existing regulation from being effective? Why is the Do Not Call Registry (Source: https://www.donotcall.gov/) ineffective? Does the SPAMers' business model depend on acquiring new phone numbers in bulk, so limiting those sales is a reasonable target for new regulation?

I look forward to your explanations!

Background:

The U.S. Constitution grants the president nearly unlimited power to pardon federal crimes. This power has been used extensively throughout the history of the republic. But inevitably, there's conflict around particular pardons for each president, including the most recent one.

Questions:

• What's the political theory behind granting pardon power to the chief executive of the country?
• Throughout history, is there evidence that the use of the pardon has been a net positive or negative?
• Does the use of the pardon indicate that the Federal criminal justice system is not fair and impartial?
• Does the use of the pardon diminish or enhance the public's belief in the fairness of the system?
• What are the overall pros and cons of the president having this power.

Are there any checks on this power? Could the tariffs be essentially infinite, or even negative?

In the past several days, President-elect Trump has proposed tariffs on a wide range of countries, on various goods. There is some question about whether he's serious, or the exact details, but because he says he'll enact tariffs on Day One, I am curious to know what checks and balances there are on any powers the President may have here.

I’ve been thinking about this for a bit, and thought about it again after seeing a fringe far-right Romanian politician receive more votes than the incumbent in the first round. Every election I’ve seen in the past several years, the incumbent party has lost, often dramatically. This goes for left wing, moderate and right wing incumbent parties. A list I can think of off the top of my head;

United States, Trump’s reelection.

UK Tories getting annihilated.

Modi’s party severely underperforming expectations.

The far-right winning control of Italy’s government.

Macron’s party coming in third in the latest elections.

Bolsonaro losing reelection.

Poland’s incumbent party losing after ages in control of government.

The SDP hasn’t lost in Germany yet, but they are basically dead.

Botswana's incumbent party losing after over half a century in control.

This is just a list of some of the most widely covered elections, so I encourage people to add examples that buck this trend or fit it. But I know little about Mexican politics other than the previous President was remarkably popular. Incumbents losing popularity seems widespread due to rising costs of living. What is different about Mexico?

Background:

The DoEd was split off in 1979 to manage programs that were already Congressionally mandated. Its tasks are limited, because education in the United States is largely funded at the state and local level.

Some of the Department of Education’s biggest jobs are to administer federal funding appropriated by Congress to K-12 schools and manage the federal student loan and financial aid programs. [...]

But federal funding typically accounts for roughly just 10% of all school funding because the rest comes from state and local taxes.

The incoming Trump administration has a stated goal of eliminating the department.

Questions:

• What are the reasons to keep and eliminate the Department of Education?
• In the event that the department is shut down, who is proposed to administer the Congressionally mandated programs it handles now?
• What, if any, are the projected savings of eliminating the department?

Thanks to /u/rameshv98 for the idea and original version of this submission.

In cooperation with /r/geopolitics, we're announcing this AMA with Newsweek's Senior Editor for Russia and Ukraine, Yevgeny Kuklychev, today at 9:00 AM ET.

Background:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance of 32 member states. At the core of its deterrent functions is Article 5, whose collective defense principles mean that an attack on one ally is considered as an attack against all allies. Article 5 has long been considered a successful deterrent to aggression in Europe, at first countering the Warsaw Pact countries, and later Russia.

But things changed with the rise of Donald Trump, who has been openly critical of NATO. It was widely reported that soon after Trump took office, NATO's mutual defense obligations were explained to him and he responded, "You mean, if Russia attacked Lithuania, we would go to war with Russia?" adding, "That’s crazy." Just the suggestion that the United States could not be depended on would compromise the value of such an alliance, but in 2020, Trump went a step further, reportedly telling the European Commission President, "You need to understand that if Europe is under attack we will never come to help you and to support you." He then added, "By the way, NATO is dead, and we will leave, we will quit NATO."

Now, despite Russia annexing part of Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and fomenting a war in Donbas, all prior to invading Ukraine in 2022, nine NATO countries have still not met their recommended military funding targets. And after nearly three years of war in Ukraine with an intensive sanctions regime against Russia, weapons production in NATO countries still lags way behind Russia.

On the other hand, NATO countries still have the nuclear umbrella that didn't extend to Ukraine. Some argue this alone, with some updating, would be enough to deter aggression.

Questions:

• Is NATO still a credible deterrent?
• Are member countries right to doubt the commitment of other members, especially the U.S., to Article 5?
• Is it appropriate for smaller countries to have a credible fear that the rest of NATO would not come to its aid if attacked?
• In a NATO with less political commitment and military industrial output than Russia, is the nuclear umbrella still a sufficient deterrent?

I'm looking to better understand what to be on the lookout for. One of the last things we saw was him talking about opposing Fluoride in the water, but to my understanding that would be harder for him to accomplish because fluoride is implemented on a state and local level (which is not to say that he can't do it, just that it's not directly under his control in HHS). As a person who is worried about his opposition to science-backed medicine, what things can he do right away with his position of power as Health and Human Services secretary that might damage reliance on scientific consensus and create downstream impacts for Americans who want HHS to continue to follow the science? What direct powers does he have? What can he accomplish with or without the help of Congress? What will require an executive order? Does he have any direct powers to implement these things?

RFK Jr.'s positions:

Opposed to vaccines "There’s no vaccine that is, you know, safe and effective." - Lex Fridman podcast

Promotes debunked theories about vaccines and autism Edited a book promoting the link between Thimerosal and autism. despite continued lack of scientific evidence.

[opposes fluoride in the drinking water] (https://x.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1852812012478398923?s=46) despite evidence that it is safe.

Wants to ban puberty blockers for children despite the fact that they are linked to reduction of suicidal ideation in trans children

[Says HIV does not cause AIDS] (https://www.bugeyedandshameless.com/p/joe-rogan-and-robert-f-kennedy-jr)

Suggests that chemicals in the water are changing the sexuality of children

Wants to lift restrictions on raw milk This is despite the finding of bird flu in raw milk, causing it to be a potential vector for a COVID-like pandemic.

In which of these issues is he most likely to be effective in implementing his policies given the structures of power in the HHS? Are there any other areas where he has the power to drastically change policy?

Voter concerns about the economy/inflation and immigration were two major factors in Kamala's electoral loss. But these factors become advantages to Trump largely because of an uninformed/misinformed electorate. Most mainstream economists believe his policies will worsen, not improve inflation, and earlier this year Republicans rejected a bipartisan bill that would have improved border security, at Trump's behest. Fabricated falsehoods about Haitian immigrants eating pets and the government creating hurricanes via cloud seeding were also used as distractions or lines of attack by Republicans, not to mention the "big lie" that Trump won the 2020 election, which continues to be impactful. Though they don't utilize misinformation as heavily, Democrats are not immune to it either; for example, Kamala misrepresented Project 2025's plans for Social Security and pregnancies.

Currently there are very few checks on fake news and misinformation in the U.S., except for slander directed against specific people (e.g. Alex Jones being taken to court for defamation by victims of the Sandy Hook shooting). Are there any other countries that have laws or provisions in place to limit the spread or impact of politically-driven misinformation? What legal obstacles are there to implementing such protections in the U.S.?

Good afternoon, everyone! With this election behind us, I am looking to get more politically aware and active as opposed to looking at a candidate voting history before Election Day. I do believe our representatives in the house and senate care about our opinions, and we have a duty to make our opinions known if we want things to change. That being said — besides scouring websites daily to see what coming up to the floor for votes, what resources are there to stay up to date?

I have looked over votesmart.org and issuevoter.org — are there any more that you all utilize to stay informed and connected to the voting body?

The US political parties are not serving us (1, 2, 3), we only have two choices for a US population that has diverse in many forms (economic stats, social status, education level, age, gender, racial identity, cultural etc) (1, 2, 3)

Would welcome a discussion on what actions a regular citizen can initiate to create small changes that improve the quality of life for society, (local neighborhood) and try to scale those changes with others (county - state changes) yet keep their livelihood of enjoying life as best they as they see fit.

Trump won the popular vote with issue number two of his platform being the largest mass deportation of illegal aliens in history:

From: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform

"1 Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion

"2 Carry out the largest deportation operation in American history"

Public polling has found that most Americans support deporting all illegal aliens ^1, ^2 ; that nearly half of Americans support the military being involved, including running detention centers ^3 , with furthermore surprisingly robust support from not just Republicans but Democrats as well in such polls.

Additionally, Trump won a larger share of the Latino vote than any Republican candidate ever at 45% ^4 and there is even some evidence that some illegal aliens themselves are sympathetic, even though they understand they may well be deported ^5 .

• Who saw this coming and what did they say/write about it?
• What lessons can be learned from these results?

As of last month, public support for the idea of a third major U.S. political party was at 58%. A year prior, it was at 63%. Given the recent state of things with the current political parties.

• Is there evidence that periods like now, after a major party has suffered a resounding defeat, are conducive to the rise of third parties?
• Historically, when have third parties been successful in the US?
• Does the failure of the No Labels group to put forward a candidate indicate there's not enough support right now for a new party, or is it unrelated?
• How many, if any, disaffected Republicans and centrist Democrats have expressed support for a moderate third party? Enough to make it a viable option?
• Is there anything specific about the results of the recent election that should lead us to believe this is a good or bad time to launch a moderate third party?

Sorry for my potential naivete, but I've heard the word thrown around so much over the years and figured I'd finally look up what it actually meant.

So from a two minute Google search and a quick scan of Wikipedia, the term comes from the liberals who left the left due to their pacifism and counterculture in the 60s. (Sources I read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism?wprov=sfla1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neoconservative)

If this is the case, why aren't they called neoliberals and what happened to their liberal views outside of how it pertained to the counterculture movement?

How did they go from being liberals to being the Cheney's and the Bush's of the world? You can be a hawk and still be a liberal imo.

I know next to nothing about political science, please be nice :(

We’ve been noticing a serious shift in the Western world’s view of democracy and governance. It feels like something foundational is changing in how people engage with their governments. Now, I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but I do believe that long-term plans and global strategies play a role here. https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/06/13/european-elections-the-far-right-gained-ground-in-eu-founding-countries_6674740_4.html

What concerns me most is the rise of far-right ideologies and a growing acceptance of authoritarian / fascism thinking across the West. Is democracy itself eroding from within, with parts of the population becoming increasingly skeptical or even hostile toward it?

Could superpowers like Russia and China be benefiting from this? We know Russia has been highly effective in disinformation campaigns, influencing divisions and amplifying social rifts in democratic societies. ( https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/3789933/understanding-russian-disinformation-and-how-the-joint-force-can-address-it/ ) But there also seems to be a deeper, internal shift going on that might go beyond any foreign influence, or maybe not?

So, where is this paradigm shift really coming from? Are these long-standing societal issues that are only now coming to the surface? Or is this part of a larger strategy by external powers to destabilize the West?

I’m really interested in hearing different perspectives, especially from those who follow global geopolitics / history closely. Thanks for any insights you can share!

Democrats have had ongoing struggles with men leaving the party since 2016 (see chart in the link "Young Men Are Leaving the Democratic Party"). Donald Trump has taken advantage of this and focused considerable efforts to attract men, specifically young men, to turn out and vote for him on election day (see Time magazine "Why Trump Thinks He Needs Young Men to Win"). What evidence and factors exists to explain this shift of men towards Donald Trump?

In the last year Elon Musk has become an increasingly vocal figure in political and social debates, with notable influence due to his large platform (X) and considerable resources. With his recent statements and actions, there’s been substantial public discussion about his role and potential impact on U.S. politics. https://www.dw.com/en/elon-musks-grip-on-tech-and-politics-is-getting-stronger/a-70597699 https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/08/can-elon-musk-influence-the-us-general-election

What does current evidence suggest about the actual impact of Musk's political engagement on the 2024 U.S. election? Are there any indications that his influence aligns with or diverges from other corporate leaders or public figures in the tech sector?

What are trumps and Kamala's opinions and plans for Section 8 housing and state university grants? Per the link provided, I saw Trump say he wants to disband the dept of Education.

How could each candidate plan affect these funded sources? Could this mean students who rely on this to go to college be affected and could this affect people who use section 8 and how?

Link: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/20/politics/department-of-education-shut-down-trump/index.html

Predictive models, popularized by 538, aggregate polling data to try to predict election outcomes.

The roots of these predictive models seem to be sports models, where statistics such as team performance and individual performance are used to predict the likely winners.

The big difference between sports and elections however, is that sports is a skill based game which has elements of luck, whereas elections are simply activities done by voters to determine a political leader.

Famously, 538 predicted a 70+% chance that Hillary would win the 2008 election, and she ended up losing. Most predictive models are largely predicting a "50/50" result for the upcoming 2024 election, including basically 50/50 chances in most battleground states [1] [2] [3].

My questions and appeal for conversation/discussion:

• If predictive models are simply summing up and weighing error-prone polls, how does such a summation result in a more accurately framed "probability" for election outcomes?
• How are elections "probabilistic outcomes"? The election will be determined by voters - there is no skill, chance, or luck involved, and certainly not to the degree of something like a professional sports match.
• If a predictive model can't really tell who wins the election at 70%+ probability, then what value does it provide and what insight does it provide and what value does it add to the conversation? I understand a 30% chance of something happening is a far cry from "impossible" but what value does it add when we can simply look at polls to understand who is likely to be ahead?
• Would we be better served and informed by looking at individual polls to make a guess at who is ahead?
• What do the "predictive models" add to the conversation?

I can see models adding some value to the discussion by calling out inaccurate polls or polls with flawed methodology (Nate Silver's post calling out "herding" is a great example). I'm not sure how the "predictive models" themselves add anything to the conversation.

After the 2000 election, in which there were controversies over absentee ballots being counted in Florida, the New York Times completed a landmark investigation into the process around counting ballots and uncovered several irregularities which allowed Bush to be declared the winner in the state over Gore.

EXAMINING THE VOTE; How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote

The article calls out several process failures which would not necessarily fall under the commonly considered "voter fraud" umbrella (whereas voter fraud is commonly referring to things like double voting, voting with a stolen identity, voting on behalf of a deceased person, etc).

In an analysis of the 2,490 ballots from Americans living abroad that were counted as legal votes after Election Day, The Times found 680 questionable votes. Although it is not known for whom the flawed ballots were cast, four out of five were accepted in counties carried by Mr. Bush, The Times found. Mr. Bush's final margin in the official total was 537 votes.

The flawed votes included ballots without postmarks, ballots postmarked after the election, ballots without witness signatures, ballots mailed from towns and cities within the United States and even ballots from voters who voted twice. All would have been disqualified had the state's election laws been strictly enforced.

There is information about high level, abstract "ballot rejection" statistics, such as this MIT paper:

A Deep Dive into Absentee Ballot Rejection in the 2020 General Election

And this article applying regression models to voting intentions:

No evidence for systematic voter fraud: A guide to statistical claims about the 2020 election

But similar models were also applied to the 2000 election in Florida and did not uncover statistically significant conclusions based purely on the data:

Statistical Issues in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election in Florida

The conclusions of the statistical analysis stands in stark contrast to the process irregularities uncovered by the New York Times report from 2001.

What I am looking for is a deep dive into the actual specifics and potential inconsistencies in actually applying different standards across ballots to influence a winner (process irregularities, process fraud). Has there been any journalism with a similar level of detail to the 2000/2001 New York Times investigation regarding the 2020 election, potentially as a result of either legal discovery owing to the various lawsuits or research uncovered via investigative journalism, one way or the other?

Both parties have been promising policies that will increase take home pay and better reward workers. Both parties have promised no tax on overtime pay, which would be awesome and probably change the way many people are paid. Also, both sides have strong backgrounds with increasing workforce CNN Trump Harris Workforce.

Trump's 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs act increased wages and decreased unemployment and decreased taxes on lower/middle class significantly TCJA Benefit Study. On the Harris/Walz side, Walz in MN has done a fantastic job with workforce, arguably the best the US if you factor in cost of living % Workers Making <17$/hr by State . MN even spawned the getfulfil company that helps people into blue collar jobs and growing fields that don't require college GetFulfil Career Helper . MN is also great for business CBS News MN Business.

What are the pros and cons of each candidate's proposed policy and previous execution?

I hope this isn’t a silly question, but I’m genuinely curious.

Each election cycle, I see individuals and groups whose mission is completely neutral—they don’t endorse any candidates or issues. Their only goal seems to be making sure people are registered and go out to vote.

I understand why people or organizations backing a specific candidate would encourage voting, but I don’t quite understand the motivation behind groups that just want people to vote, regardless of political preference.

Could someone explain the purpose behind this? Why would it matter to them if people vote, without caring about who they vote for?

Example: Rock The Vote - About Us

This coming Tuesday, November 5th, is the last day of voting in the U.S. general election.

If you're a potential voter and haven't cast your ballot yet, you may want to check out our voter information post.

Many people (especially those living outside the U.S.) are looking forward to this election season being over. Unfortunately, Tuesday is not likely to be the end of it, so this post is designed to let people know what to expect moving forward.

• Votes take time to be counted. Many states do not even begin counting their absentee/mail-in ballots until the polls close on Election Day, meaning they will take an especially long time to report and certify a full count. In 2020, fifteen states didn't certify until at least four weeks after the election, and in 2016, some were even later.
• As the results are coming in, changes to the count are normal. The fact that someone is leading at one point and then behind at another is entirely a function of which ballots from which districts are being counted. It doesn't indicate that anything unusual has happened. Moreover, areas with higher population density logically take longer to process their ballots and they tend to lean left, so late shifts leftwards are quite common.
• Based on the polling, this could be one of the closest races in the last 60 years. Don't let anyone tell you it should be a landslide just because they're immersed in communities, social circles, or media silos that unflappably support one side. It's a big country. Just because someone only knows people who support one of the candidates does not mean that candidate will win.
• Polling is an inexact art and discrepancies between polling and voting are normal. Donald Trump has outperformed his polling in both his previous campaigns. Democrats have outperformed their polling since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. We do not know who will win.
• Similarly, betting odds and prediction markets are not reliable indicators of outcome. Their lines shift based on the incoming bets, not probabilities. (We discussed this in depth a few weeks ago.)
• There will be legal challenges, likely from both campaigns. It's common for campaigns to challenge issues they feel were not handled properly. Some challenges have already been filed and there will assuredly be others up until and after the polls have closed. This is not unusual, though given the political climate, the volume may be higher this year. More claims does not indicate malfeasance or unreliability in the system.
• Legal challenges are not the same as "election denialism," which can be defined as a willingness "to deny the lawfully determined outcome of an election." If a candidate is unwilling to accept the results after the challenges have been filed and adjudicated, that is denialism.
• There may be recounts and runoff elections in some races. Recounts are triggered by small margins of victory and/or successful recount requests, depending on the jurisdiction. There's no such thing as a runoff election in the presidential race, but in some states, there may be runoffs for other offices, depending on the margin of victory.
• The voting age population of the country has been rising every year for over a century, which means that if turnout rates are consistent, more people vote in each successive election. Based on national polling, each major party candidate is projected to garner around 80 million votes this year. And if turnout is high, even the losing candidate could set a new record for most votes received.
• The electoral college system decides who wins, not the popular vote.
• Some election laws have changed since 2020. The Electoral Count Act was revised to clarify the role of the Vice President in the process. Quite a few state laws have changed as well, some more restrictive and some more expansive of the franchise.
• Beware disinformation. Social media, assisted by generative A.I., is being used, mostly by foreign adversaries, to undermine confidence in our elections and to stoke discord, so as to pit Americans against each other. Past incidents have been investigated and proven. Expect even more in the future.
• Among the public, confidence in election administration is slightly higher than in the last couple cycles, but still considerably below historical norms. Among some election experts, however, confidence is high. Here's an interview with some of them.

The point of all this is that we should expect some degree of controversy and we may not know the final results for a while. Strap in, monitor reliable sources like AP News, and be patient.

This is an informational post for our users.

Israel has the 27th largest GDP, sitting between Ireland and the UAE, and above nations like Austria and Singapore.

They have a strong tech sector, on par with Silicon Valley.

Yet, the US provides billions in aid to Israel to assist with the conflict its currently fighting.

Why does a modern wealthy nation need aid in a war?

Why cant it instead purchase any military needs from the people who make it?

I would like to understand the war involving Israel, Lebanon, and Iran. I already understand the conflict between Israel and Palestine/Hamas, but I didn't realize until a few days ago that Israel was also fighting these other countries.

Why are they fighting? Have they formally declared war, or is this a stand-off with occasional violence? What are likely outcomes of this conflict?

news stories that mention the conflict:

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-strikes-lebanon-gaza-war-10-27-24/index.html

LA Times: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-israel-answers-iran-these-three-questions-about-war-in-the-mideast-remain/ar-AA1sYXEe

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/10/28/world/israel-gaza-iran-lebanon

I would like to understand which forces are in play after a coup in an african country (I started wondering about it while thinking about the 2023-2024 events in Niger: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerien_crisis_(2023%E2%80%932024)).

I understand that there is the new military government, more aligned with Russia and Sahel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_of_Sahel_States), and the old government that would be aligned with western countries and ECOWAS (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/military-interventions-by-west-african-ecowas-bloc-2023-08-04/).

My main question is: Why is the new government in power? What does it depend on? (Some context with https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/what-are-west-africas-options-reverse-nigers-coup-2023-08-04/)

As a first point, instinctively I would say that it depends on what amount of support the current government receives from Russia (https://apnews.com/article/wagner-russia-coup-niger-military-force-e0e1108b58a9e955af465a3efe6605c0) (and possibly China, or other relevant countries?), and at the same time, on which amount of effort western countries would put into restoring the previous government.

While the help from Russia may only depend on the mood of Putin, and on the results of the war in Ukraine, what determines the efforts (or lack of) of western powers?

As a second point, I am wondering about the intervention of Burkina Faso and Mali (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/mali-niger-burkina-faso-sign-sahel-security-pact-2023-09-16/). Do they act more indipendently or accordingly to influences from third parties? And what about the ECOWAS?

Finally, and most importantly, I am wondering about the relationships between Niger and western countries and western companies (I am thinking about uranium mining in particular, since https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/uranium-mines-niger-worlds-7th-biggest-producer-2023-07-28/).

On one side, I could think that Niger's new government should want to have bad relationships with western countries, France in particular. The government has been hostile with some western companies (https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/canadas-goviex-uraniums-stripped-niger-mining-rights-2024-07-05/, https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/niger-junta-temporarily-stops-granting-new-mining-licences-2024-01-25/), while pretty collaborative with others (https://www.globalatomiccorp.com/investors/news/news-details/2024/GLOBAL-ATOMIC-ANNOUNCES-NIGER-GOVERNMENT-SUPPORT-FOR-THE-DASA-PROJECT/default.aspx). Why is this happening, and what are the real intentions of the government?

I asked my questions on Niger, but i would be happy to read any interesting consideration about similar situations in other african countries.

Background

The U.S. general election is 10 days away. Voting is not compulsory in the U.S., but it is widely regarded as a civic or moral duty.

I've seen some posts lately questioning if voting is worthwhile or if it can make an appreciable difference in one's life. Participants in this subreddit presumably have a pro-voting bias, but for the sake of neutrality, let's try to set that aside when discussing this issue.

Pros

There are many lists of reasons why one should vote. I found this one, directed mostly at younger voters, to be appealing, because of it's arguments that one's vote is effective and gives people a seat at the table.

Also, the next president will determine some policies that will affect our long-term future, such as Supreme Court appointments and climate change. Even for people who don't vote in the swing states that will likely determine the presidential race, there are down-ballot contests that will decide important questions of law and representation.

Cons

Jason Brennan is a well-known opponent of the idea that one's vote matters, and in fact, of democracy overall as a governing mechanism. Some of his reasons are that the odds of affecting a race are vanishingly small, most citizens are uninformed, and the particular party that gets voted into power doesn't have much of an effect on policy outcomes.

As a student of policy, and especially its cumulative effect, I don't find the first and last of those particularly convincing, though I'm open to other perspectives. I have some sympathy for the second point, though. Not everyone is interested enough in politics to research the issues, or informed enough to understand the nuances. Perhaps there's an advantage to the population not being subject to governance determined by the choices of such people.

Questions

• What's the evidence supporting why someone should or shouldn't vote?
• What are the historical consequences of high or low voter turnout?
• How do democracies deal with the issue of under-informed voters and is their prevalence a reasonable argument against encouraging widespread voting?

Ive been wondering for awhile about if and how organized crime groups may influence politics in the USA. I assume where there is money there is a drive to protect it through political action. Here is a link to an article about organized crime changing the world https://globalinitiative.net/analysis/op-ed-organised-crime-has-affected-politics-but-not-in-the-way-we-have-come-to-expect-now-is-the-time-to-build-a-new-agenda/.
Here is one about types of corruption affecting the world, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/organised-crime-and-corrupting-political-system

But what about in the USA? I see items on influencing labor unions and city politics but has anyone looked at more direct action in national politics like running their own candidate? Or involvement in lobbies? Discussion of the idea would be appreciated. Thank you.

Here in the UK, it has been in the news that Trump has filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Labour Party, relating to the Labour Party sending a delegation of volunteers to the USA to help the Harris campaign.

I understand that it’s illegal for US political parties to accept financial donations from foreign interests. I understand that Labour are saying there is no financial donations here - the volunteers pay for their own flights, and accommodation is provided for free by Democrats.

But what I’m really interested in, is whether this kind of thing happens every election cycle, or whether it’s unusual. Do Labour always send volunteers? Do the Tories ever send volunteers to campaign for the Republicans? Have the Tories ever sent volunteers specifically to campaign for Trump, either in this election cycle or the two previous ones?

A year ago, the Biden administration announced they waived 26 federal laws in South Texas to allow border wall construction. What is the status of that construction now? How much wall has been built, or is still being built, under the Biden administration?

https://apnews.com/article/border-wall-biden-immigration-texas-rio-grande-147d7ab497e6991e9ea929242f21ceb2