http://www.politico.com/story/... is the first I found, and that's 10/2016, at 200 million.

198 million records of people over the age of 18 and registered to vote... isn't that basically "everyone who's registered to vote?" Or dang near?

Anyone with more spare research cycles? How many registered voters are in america currently?

You are absolutely correct. It falls within their job description. Perhaps I should have said "the problem is that they cannot be held accountable when they misuse those abilities."

Much as the whole idea of espionage leaves a sour taste in my mouth, I understand its necessity. But you're spot on in that the NSA got lazy, and they slipped the scope of their jurisdiction, and they were never brought to heel over it. Truth be told, there were a lot of politicians drooling over the potential that technology held, and were sad to see it brought to light – those same politicians we supposedly elected to protect and serve our interests. And no amount of waving the 'national security' flag will ever make this sort of mass surveillance in my – or anyone's – best interests.

I appreciate the sentiment of this. I truly do.
Self-sustaining, anarchistic self-governance sounds fantastic.

As long as the whole world moves to it.

The problem with anarchy is (paradoxically) that governments are a necessary evil because other governments exist. The moment America descends into chaotic anarchy or ascends into a utopian anarchy, every other nation on earth will see it as weakness and attack. Russia will take out a century of cold war hostilities. China. Iran. ISIS. North Korea might even take a swing. And that's just with today's "villains."

And none of that even supposes the problems with anarchy in practicality. Anarchy only works so long as the table is level, so long as everyone holds equal force and equal voice. The moment two people group together to better get their way, it starts an arms race that leads us back to right where we're sitting. The moment one person finds enough leverage to overturn the vote on that road, or pays off enough people to pass the vote regardless, the system is broken again. Our current government is, for better or worse, the end result of an attempt to actualize a utopian anarchy. After all, wasn't America founded on the ideals of self-determination and freedom from power hungry tyrants?

The problem isn't government. The problem is people. Or rather, the problem is that the greed and corruption exist within people, and in fact cannot exist outside of people. Government is only corrupt because it is a product of people working together to achieve an end, and people are inherently corrupt.

And yes, the system is rigged, in ways far deeper and more pervasive than any Trump dreamed up during the campaign. And yes, voting doesn't meaningfully change anything above the local level, if even there. And this is, I think, where the hopelessness stems from: people know that it's broken, but the monumental task of fixing it will likely topple our government rather than reform it, and that will likely get us killed before we could recover from it. For the survival of the average American citizen, a broken system is better than no system at all. Because of the enemies we have made (or nations who have decided we are enemies regardless of our actions)...a coup or a revolution would mean war on our soil. People are beginning to realize that fixing our government means the deaths of millions, and not from a civil war.

What are we supposed to do about it?

The real issue isn't the fact that the CIA/NSA/ [insert bureau here] can do these things. The issue is that they can't be held accountable for it.

We saw this in the financial crash of '08 (albeit in the private sector) as well: no one who is actually responsible for these things will ever see jail time. This won't end anyone's career. There's just not much the American people can do about it, and I think there's a sense among the general populace that they know this, even if only on a subconscious level. It's not apathy. It's a helpless resignation.

If, as you mentioned, we can already achieve wireless audio through third-parties, then how does the removal of a jack signify or aid "market lock-in"? I'm not beholden to apple to buy their headphones. Bluetooth is bluetooth. I'm not sure I see how we're being locked in to anything here. I could switch from my apple phone to my android phone with no issue. A proprietary plug, I could understand as lock-in (although I do like the "non 4-dimensional" qualities of the lightning adapter).

I do agree that the modern office space is not necessarily prepared for people to do meetings with no audio jack option. I will say, people thought Apple was crazy when they dumped the CD/DVD drive as well, but I can't say I've missed mine yet. I'm not sure I would call it "bravery", but I might call it "an unwillingness to allow the status quo to prevent our vision of progress", which sounds much more like Apple.

Honestly, how often is wired internet even available in these situations? Do you want to wait in line for a booth with wired internet at every airport and con and conference and ted talk? Should we be adding an RJ45 in the back of every convention hall chair? The logistics you're describing are untenable, especially in light of wifi's existence. The beauty of wifi is that many people can connect from a single point, without being tethered to a cord. That freedom is worth the latency for all but some of the most critical tasks. These are the problems wifi was invented to solve. It sounds like you're wanting to return us all to 1999.

Am I missing something in your post? Because based on your complaints it sounds like we'd be better off if we could solve some of wifi's issues, instead.

We know what each of our American presidential candidates are like too, but we're still going to give one of them the job....

Venatus vestibulum robotics, ipsum amet metus in modum

Better? :)

This. Mod parent up.

But what if my vote is that both candidates are power-hungry, narcissistic, and self-serving, and I find neither of them fit for office? Where's my 'NONE OF THE ABOVE' option? Preferably it's an option that, if it wins, invalidates the other two candidates for political office for a set number of years. "You have been weighted and measured by your populace, and you have been found wanting. Go sit in the corner and think about what you've done." Then we start a new campaign, and the new candidates look REALLY HARD at why their predecessors got the no-vote.

Sure, we'd have periods of time with no governor, or missing a senator or two. But let's be honest: they shut the government down on a whim anyway, right? And life has carried on in their absence. So what can it hurt?

The fact is we have very little say in WHO ends up in our elections. The parties manage those choices for us these days. I'm not a fan of their candidates, because in a state like Texas I don't have much "choice" in my choices. That starts to stretch the bonds of democracy.

That sounds good. Except for one tiny thing:

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.