Hacker News Reader

The headline makes it seem like he's saying there will be no more elections ever.

But in context he's saying there will not be a do-over election.

When the dude has been in power for 26 years, that's somewhat of a distinction without a difference.

That's an absurd take. Lots of politicians have long tenures because they've won re-election. That is not the same as suspending elections.

> Lots of politicians have long tenures because they've won re-election.

Like Kim Jong-un? Who wins every re-election with 100% of the vote?

Why not Chuck Schumer, who has been winning elections for 40 years without a loss?

Clearly one should care about the fairness of the election process, not that someone wins lots of elections. To say that winning multiple elections is the same as ending democracy is, as I said, an absurd take.

Winning every election is really not something that can be taken at face value. If those elections are being won unfairly, or if the will of the people is to institute a term limit, then yes, they are effectively suspending the changing of leadership, which is the same as what a person means when they say "suspending elections". I also don't appreciate immediately jumping to calling a differing opinion "absurd".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com