Just no: Subverting democracy is never okay. People like libreboot and you are actual, credible threats to democracy.
Corporations from other states and countries who don't like this bill make use of that. Proponents can too.
There is nothing fair about a state vote corrupted by voices outside of the state, let alone outside of the country.
But under no circumstances should you try to unilaterally influence or coerce him in some way. That's overstepping the line.
What line?
But, since things are interconnected, and a state isn't just some lonely abstract entity, isn't in your interest to try push for things that are good overall?
Why shouldn't I try to convince people that a certain change is a good thing, even if that change doesn't influence me directly?
States are separate for a reason, the people of each state want to do things their own way. For the things we can all agree nationally there is the federal government, but for everything else it's separated at the state level so we step on as few toes as possible.
Spamming a New Hampshire state representative when you aren't in New Hampshire, let alone not in the US, subverts democracy by violating state and possibly country lines.
Still, to push your reasoning, what if I’m not in NH but I plan to move there in the near future from a neighboring state?
What if I’m planning to move there from another country?
What if the move is not certain but I’m just considering the possibility?
Also, what if I simply think something is a good thing and I want to help promote it?
A free and fair election is about ensuring that eligible voters are informed, that they have access to the ballot box, and that those ballots are accurately counted.
You may or may not like what's going on in New Hampshire, but if you aren't a New Hampshire resident with voting rights you don't get to have any say in their affairs.
It's a dangerous territory you're trying to propose.
What OP and the article are asking is for someone in, say, Belgium or Canada or Texas to go and contact a New Hampshire state representative about a strictly New Hampshire state affair. Talk about making unnecessary and inappropriate noise for New Hampshire's democracy.
As an analogy, say Colorado passed a law that New Hampshire is also considering passing. In that case would you consider it interference for people from Colorado to speak in New Hampshire saying "You guys shouldn't pass this, it worked out poorly for us in Colorado"?
Generally speaking: Yes.
Should people not be allowed to read those opinions, or should writers outside the state not be allowed to write them?
Likewise, what scale of input on elections is considered too small to ban? Is criticizing the policies or politics of other states allowed at all?
I could not disagree with your view more, but I'm genuinely curious how you're thinking about this issue and what you'd want to see in practice.
For example, the Business Software Alliance (BSA), founded by Microsoft, operates in over 30 countries. It engages in both lobbying and litigation, around the US and around the world. Individual companies engage in lobbying outside of trade groups as well.
https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240234078/Government-op...
The irony of the parent comment is that "tech" companies, the ones that disseminate proprietary software, have done and continue to do more to "subvert democracy" than any individual in history has ever done, and they do this more or less free from civil liability or criminal prosecution.
This bill is interesting because, as it currently reads, it does not force the state to use non-proprietary software. It is not stopping the state from purchasing Microsoft software licenses, for example. Instead it prohibits the state from forcing the residents of NH to use proprietary software in order to interact with the state agencies:
"21-W:1 Mandatory Use of Proprietary Software Prohibited. No person in the state of New Hampshire shall be required to use proprietary software for any interaction with the government, including, but not limited to: the filing or payment of taxes, remote appearance for court proceedings, the taking of standardized tests or the completion of coursework by school students, applying for or receiving unemployment benefits, or other similar benefits, unless the government agency has determined that the proprietary software is the only means available for the required interaction. In such cases of proprietary software use, the agency shall post a notice of its determination and the use of proprietary software on the agency's website."
This is a topic that comes up on HN with moderate frequency. For example, a website tries to force the user to use a specific client, which is effectively proprietary software under the control of a "tech" company.
The client might be a Big Tech advertising-sponsored web browser that no one except Big Tech employees ever audits, modifies or compiles, regardless of whether the source code is available. It might be a closed mobile app that pins TLS certificates to stop anyone from observing what data it records about its user and sends to the "tech" company, sometimes called "phoning home" to the "mothership".
The website might use something like Cloudflare in the name of "protection" primarily to restrict clients to a certain browsers controlled by Big Tech that can be leveraged against users (ad targets) for data collection, surveillance and advertising.
https://www.cloudflare.com/solutions/protect-websites-applic...
With all due respect, speaking as someone not in New Hampshire, your (and the article's) request to me and others like myself is a subversion of democracy.
This New Hampshire state bill is being deliberated in the New Hampshire state legislature, to be eventually voted on by New Hampshire state legislators voted in by and representing the people of the state of New Hampshire.
As a strictly state matter, any influence from outside the state of New Hampshire is a subversion of democracy in the state.