I built a moderately complex application in Django at a previous workplace, using the ORM for most things, until the queries were too complex for the ORM.
Another guy connected to the same database and built some graphs using PHP and SQL. Guess who had to help him write the SQL when the queries got too complex for him? The ORM user.
The thing is you are free to hold and expose extreme views - and I strongly support your right to do so and not to be subject to persecution from the state for doing so. However I also have the right to not associate with you if I think that you are a dick.
Ignoring people who we don't agree with is how we got to a place where supporting your political party was more important than having an ideology you could morally justify.
I personally lean fairly far to the right but I spend a lot of time listening to NPR, reading slate, and other pretty lefty publications. When I talk to people who only consume one side of the media, whether it's right or left, I feel like I'm talking to a wall of nonsense. People have so little understanding of those they disagree with and will dismiss them with "they're a bunch of idiots" so quickly that their position has no basis in reality. I'm not saying we should give everyone a platform, I'm saying that if someone says "all the rich should be killed" or "gay men don't know love" each position despite being on diametrically opposite sides of our current political landscape need to be understood if we want to move forward.
The OP is talking about extreme views like racism (or in their case hating trans people).
You are talking about listening to Democrat opinions.
Very very different thing.
I am quite happy to be friends with people with different political opinions or who vote for another party.
I am also happy to know who is spouting racist, sexist or crazy drivel. This allows me personally to avoid them.
Others may choose to engage with the extremists I choose not to waste my time. This is a matter for individual free will.
NB once again listening to Democrat/republican media when you are voting for the other party is just normal and has nothing to do with choosing not to associate with e.g Klansman.
The old spec, https://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec10.html, seems to say that 401 can mean either unauthenticated or unauthorized. If you haven't signed in, it means unauthenticated. If you have signed in, then it means unauthorized. Were the status codes written before authenticate and authorize had the narrow meanings of today?
Meanwhile, 403 seems to be reserved for when the server just generally doesn't want to do what you're asking it to do. It may tell you, it may not, it doesn't have to tell you, so there. "Authorization will not help..."
It doesn't need to be at scale if the elections are won by very small margins. Successfully executing voter fraud on a few key districts can sway an entire election.
Even in fptp systems like the UK and the US correctly predicting the precise polling stations to infiltrate and compromise to stuff the required 1000-100000 ballots is tricky. And in the UK your whole plot would probably fail anyway - as random people and representatives of the other parties would be present observing you.
Don't be in that situation. No seriously. I even went so far as emigrating and moving to a country with a better welfare state partly to avoid this ever happening.
Not everyone has the luxury of being able to move countries+. Which is why we should all vote and lobby for better welfare systems - so that we and our loved ones never have to take these types of decisions.
Edit
+ It usually takes marketable skills that allow a well paid job such that welfare doesn't seem like a priority.
Edit
Would down voters care to chip in with a comment? Drive bys don't really lead to good discussion.
If you are actually trying to discuss in good faith, then please respond to the topic at hand. Playing Captain Hindsight helps absolutely no one, especially the people in the situation, and really just serves as "I'm better than you!"
I absolutely agree that better welfare systems would be excellent, and would alleviate these problems quite a bit. But here in the US, that is not going to happen anytime soon. In fact, given the government in power now, I would expect the welfare system to get even worse. So please, do not offer "Don't be in that situation" as a suggestion.
Please read with good faith and also appreciate that we don't all live in America.
The original situation is horrible. No one should ever be put into it. There is little point answering the question - it has no good outcomes. Instead we need to think about how to prevent it happening. I suggest that we should strive to build societies where it does not happen. I offered a concrete suggestion for how an individual can help themselves and another for how they can try to help everyone.
In terms of the USA - Lobbying by the public has slowed attempts to decrease healthcare provision in the USA. People like you that care and live there need to continue pushing.
I did read with good faith. Regardless of where you are, "Don't be in that situation" is not, nor never will be an appropriate response.
"There is little point answering the question - it has no good outcomes."
That's exactly why there is point in answering the question. It is a very real, very common situation that does actually occur. And that decision needs to be made many times.
"I offered a concrete suggestion for how an individual can help themselves and another for how they can try to help everyone."
You really didn't, as your suggestion is not applicable for the situation.
My point is that instead of standing around crying about how terrible it is that people need to take predatory loans (and it is terrible) we should work out how we can change things so that they don't have to. My suggestion is to work with a proven mechanism - the welfare state.
Do they vote for as many electoral offices and ballot propositions at the same time as is typical in American elections? Comparing American and European election mechanisms is like comparing a truck with a bicycle.
Not sure. In UK often local, European and e.g. police commissioner elections will be held on the same day. But these are handled using multiple ballot papers. So the counting process scales purely horizontally.
Exit polls are instant. The national implications of elections are usually declared around 3-5am (counting starts around 10pm). The last constituencies usual declare by midday the next day. In the last UK general one constituency took two days - there were about 12 votes between the top two parties so they did a few recounts.
Your scenario happens with people that either don't know or don't care. They will write crappy queries with any tool.