"In the United States, previous elections were falsified through postal voting ... they bought ballots for $10, filled them out, and threw them into mailboxes without any supervision from observers, and that's it," Putin said, without providing evidence. Putin's opponents say the March election in Russia is no real contest as the president wields unchallenged power and his main rival, Alexei Navalny, is serving more than 30 years in jail on charges that Navalny says were trumped up. They say the use of electronic voting creates scope for authorities to manipulate the vote in Putin's favour without detection.

(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin, running for a new six-year term in an election that his opponents say is a parody of democracy, said on Tuesday that past U.S. elections had been rigged by postal voting.

“In the United States, previous elections were falsified through postal voting … they bought ballots for $10, filled them out, and threw them into mailboxes without any supervision from observers, and that’s it,” Putin said, without providing evidence.

    • bob_lemon@feddit.deEnglish
      4·
      8 months ago

      Historically, it was implemented because in the 1800’s, a lot could happen between an election in, say, Wisconsin, and the time the electoral college member arrives in Washington DC.

      The US being the oldest democracy might have a nice ring to it, but realistically it’s just means that there’s a lot of outdated baggage attached.

    • Xatolos@reddthat.comEnglish
      4·
      8 months ago

      The Republicans in general have shown that for a while now. The last times the Republicans won the popular vote was in 2004 (Bush, only during his second term and considered to have only won that because of his leaning on 9/11) and Regan in 1988. If it wasn’t for the electoral college, most likely the last 30 years would have only been Democrats as President.

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/1035521/popular-votes-republican-democratic-parties-since-1828/

      And this would have most likely been a great thing for the USA as Democrats ower the deficit and Republicans raise it.

      Not to mention that the economy is also typically better when a Democrat is the president.

        • Xatolos@reddthat.comEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          As most US presidents serve for 8 years (most win both terms), then such a lag would be noticed within their time in office. Your answer only applies to a small time frame, not an 8 year time frame

            • Xatolos@reddthat.comEnglish
              2·
              8 months ago

              It’s not an all or nothing with the economy and the president, but they do have some sway in some ways. Easy examples would be Biden’s Build Back Better Plan can help change the American economy, and if he does get elected to a second term, it will show results then.

              On the other side, Trump pushed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This has caused the deficit to climb, and didn’t help spur any economic growth (in fact:

              A study by the Federal Reserve Bank similarly found that corporations bought-back stock and paid down debt, rather than undertake either new capital expenditure or investment in research & development.

              And many of the issues of this truly Act became an issue starting in 2021, which if Trump was in office, would have been reflected on his presidency. (It’s part of the issues Biden has been having with the economy).

    • i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      1·
      8 months ago

      That would make sense, but that’s not the law. In most states, the electors can vote differently and it still counts, and in only some of those states is it even illegal for the elector to do that.