WHY DOES ELECTORAL INTEGRITY MATTER SO MUCH? It is easy to take elections for granted, and to assume that the published results will be accurate (after all, surely somebody would see if there was a problem). There are two cases where the accuracy of results matters: 1. Close results. If results are close enough, then errors in results could make the difference in terms of who wins the elections. 2. Disputes over the results. If any party makes the claim that results are inaccurate or unfair, then it is necessary for there to be a clear accounting, so that the disputes can be resolved one way or the other. The time to ensure that the next election is accurate and fair is now. If we wait until after an election, then it is too late - the results might be wrong, or we might not be able to obtain the information we need as quickly as we need. In each situation, the most important aim is for the whole country to be able to have confidence in the election results. There are many aspects to building this confidence, but one of the key ingredients is transparency. This means that the most important information concerning the results, and the electoral processes themselves are available. But dumping data on a website is not enough - it is necessary that the relevant information is accessible by the right people, at the right time. We do not need blind confidence in the IEC, but rather confidence from the data that nothing, in fact did go wrong. In order to prevent either a wrong result, or false claims about the results being believed, it is necessary to understand where the results can go wrong, and to take appropriate steps to ensure that this does not happen, or at least to detect wrong results when they take place. [This is just scratching the surface of the whole conversation that I believe we should be having about electoral processes in South Africa.]

@African_Spring I found the capacity and/or willingness to engage in a rational discussion of terms and definitions to be somewhat lacking.

It is far better to give objective facts - like an example of comparable posts, and the respective degree of reach. And then, instead of asserting the motive, and using the unnamed, "they", you could mention that this gives rise to the possibility that it is not done for a proper purpose.

@PGrobla @Kvnza_SA Please show me where I have denied any of this. [A lot of people have been fighting me over things I have not said.]

Has anyone, in any of the SONA speeches, made any mention of electoral reform? To be clear - it is NEVER going to be ok for politicians in a back room to just get together to decide on a change in our electoral system. There HAS to be meaningful public awareness and discussion.

@Commander_mikey @Kvnza_SA If you are going to engage in insults, you should do it better.

@Kvnza_SA Ooohh, you got me there! Caught me, "beating around the bush". I suspect that you have not understood my reasoning. This makes rational engagement a little tricky.

Waiting (not so) patiently for this list to include judgment in the MK election rigging (so-called) case...

@Kvnza_SA Either you are logically confused, or you are intenionally trying to create confusion. It is very simple. One does not have to engage in the most brutal activity in order to qualify for the description of being, "brutal and dehumanizing".

@mix_upchick @Kvnza_SA Sure, but go and argue with them and not me.

@mix_upchick @Kvnza_SA I agree that exaggeration is wrong and unhelpful. I did not claim nor agree that "millions" were killed. Please do not quote others' words at me as if they are mine. The point is that you can be brutal and dehumanising even if you do not slaughter everyone in sight.

False equivalence this time. Some bozo on X calling me a settler and telling me to go back to Europe hardly disturbs any cells on my very pink epidermis. I recall as a child going with my father and our gardener to "Bantu Affairs" to try and get the right papers so that he could travel to our area to do a poorly-paid menial job. Now that is dehumanising.

@mix_upchick @Kvnza_SA I literally have no idea why you are quoting words at me that have not been part of this conversation. If I say something inaccurate and you want to challenge me, have at it.

@WandileSihlobo Too few people are saying this.

RT @WandileSihlobo: It is time to build South Africa, not divide.

The unspoken caveat is, of course, the Constitution. Both the USA and South Africa are constitutional democracies, where there are necessaey protections against the worst whims of crude majorotarianism. [The question of activist judges is a separate one, but then no human system can perfectly balance every human impulse to abuse power. The USA has historically been one the the strongest beacons of freedom because of the vital tensions maintained by the separation of powers. As I read it, the bureauocracy has grown like a cancerous extension of the Executive to dominate the host organism.]

The circumcision question is not quite as simple as it might seem. There are instances where circumcisions will be carried out for cultural reasons, and well-run programmes to promote safe, healthy circumcision are beneficial (we still have deaths at circumcision "camps" for young men in parts of South Africa).

@woke8yearold Note also the palindrome on the digits of the time / date.