The family of a Canadian national who supported Donald Trump’s plans for mass deportations of immigrants say they are feeling betrayed after federal agents recently detained the woman in California while she interviewed for permanent US residency – and began working to expel her from the country.
“We feel totally blindsided,” Cynthia Olivera’s husband – US citizen and self-identified Trump voter Francisco Olivera – told the California news station KGTV. “I want my vote back.”
Cynthia Olivera, a 45-year-old mother of three US-born children, thus joined a growing list of examples contradicting the Trump administration’s claims that the immigration crackdown it has spearheaded since the president’s return to the Oval Office in January has prioritized targeting dangerous criminals.
Well, Canadian, obviously a commie with the healthcare etc
Votes should be revokable, I’ve always liked the idea of liquid democracy.
That’s a step in the right direction, but ultimately, the best solution would be an imperative mandate. I have no idea how we’ve let ourselves get gaslit that free mandates (once someone is elected they can do what they want, regardless of voter intention) is somehow more democratic than imperative mandates.
Arguably, Trump IS following an imperative mandate. This is what his voters want. This is what he promised them
I love this idea, but the main obstacle this has to overcome is the voter’s knowledge of the issues and any given candidate stances on them. If we implemented this in the US, I feel like most people would still simply delegate all their votes to one candidate or all candidates of a particular party. It’s a lot of information for a working person to keep track of. Any idea on how to overcome this with paper ballots? Or are computerized ballots with all relevant information embedded within the way to go?
Haven’t seen this posted in a while. I forgot you can delegate your vote to different people for different issues. How is the “category” of an issue decided though?
Wouldn’t that be up to the delagator? Wouldn’t they just decide case by case?
Then the delegator has to vote/delegate on every issue-- they don’t need expertise themselves like in a direct democracy, but it is still an issue due to sheer vote volume.
Yeah pretty much. You trust your guy until you change your mind or feel that you need to change your vote. Not really seeing a problem with that.