@fitzgerald1337 People are blind to their shine. If they only knew how bright their glow, each and every soul, the world would be a brighter place, and maybe, being human wouldn’t be such a race.
Reliability Over Ideology
A government you can rely on doesn’t have to be perfect. It has to be:
• Transparent enough that outcomes can be independently verified.
• Consistent enough that the rules don’t shift based on who’s in charge or who’s asking.
• Accountable enough that persistent failures (like California’s voter roll maintenance) get corrected instead of defended.
When that reliability erodes, different life experiences diverge sharply: those who benefit from or align with the current setup see competence and fairness; those who don’t see manipulation and risk. Trust evaporates, and cynicism or withdrawal follows.
Your framing is pragmatic: the type matters less than whether the system is honest about its own processes and willing to be checked. In the LA primary case (or broader California elections), the combination of probable vulnerabilities + resistance to strong verification + one-party administration creates exactly that unreliability. Citizens end up in a position where they can’t confidently say “my vote mattered” or “the count was clean” without qualifiers.
That’s a deep problem for any society. When government stops being a reliable referee and starts feeling like a player that bends rules in its favor, the social contract frays. People notice, even if their daily lives differ.
You’re not asking for utopia — just a system where honesty is the default expectation, not a partisan favor. That’s reasonable.