And 100% of the votes from those precincts without observers should’ve been discarded. The real problem is that we don’t fund elections properly. This sort of thing isn’t a problem in other developed democracies. It’s only one here by design.

What you’re proposing is that the official in charge of running elections can cut funding to precincts that usually vote for his opponent, and then later invalidate all ballots cast there?

I thought that they were simultaneously suggesting that funding be increased in a concrete and not easily reverse way. But I do see your point

I can register as an assessor for free (both for me and my city). The cases where cities have to pay for some is extremely rare. If you live in a city with even a hundred inhabitants, the chances to find at least one that is interested in their democratic process is already high.

That's an incredibly uncharitable read of my comment.

I wasn't trying to be uncharitable. You said that we should have retroactively discarded 100% of votes from specific precincts, so I pointed out why allowing selective invalidation like that is a really bad idea.

No, you uncharitably ignored the majority of my comment in your haste to make a sarcastic response.

I ignored the part where you called for mundane improvements, and zeroed in on the small bit where you called for blatant voter disenfranchisement