US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3510

On April 01 2016 06:32 ticklishmusic wrote:


I'm not sure where you're going with this. Suppression would, first, have to involve some deliberate action by some group. Long lines in and of themselves are not considered suppression necessarily, as they could result from any number of issues. In a pretty ideal scenario, I'd like lines to be under 10 minutes so people can get in and get out. I'm in no position to judge what could be accomplished on a reasonable budget and other constraints though.

There were comments about how lines were long, but those were comments, not complaints. More like "oh it's kind of chilly" versus "there's a blizzard that wasn't prepared for and it's awful".

On April 01 2016 06:40 GreenHorizons wrote:



You know the line about funding is bunk specifically in AZ where she got the same $1.25 per voter as she did in previous elections?

You wanted me to prove to you the DNC suppressed votes too. First I suppose we have to agree whether what happened in AZ qualifies as suppressing votes in your view.

On April 01 2016 06:39 BallinWitStalin wrote:
I live in a city of 3 million people, with a dense urban core.

In the last Canadian election, which had record voter turnout, I had to wait approximately 2 minutes for a few people ahead of me to vote. I did vote in the morning, though, so that helped.

There is no excuse for there to be lines longer than 30-45 minutes. That's about the upper limit that I think is acceptable. If there is a line longer than that in one election, there better well not be one as long in the next, because that data is tracked and appropriate resources should be allocated to that region to reduce the wait time.

It can happen once, as an outlier. It better not happen again, or your system is fucking broken (intentionally, in some cases, I am sure).

On April 01 2016 06:45 ticklishmusic wrote:


I'm not referring to the specific level of funding in this election, I'm referring to funding being a limitation that stops us from having a polling spot on every block the way we have Starbucks on every block. I'm curious then if she got the same level of funding where all the money went since I doubt the cost of a polling station has tripled.

I agreed that AZ counts as voter suppression about 10 times already. If I recall correctly, the main argument was over media coverage of the race. Also pointing out, the DNC had no role in how voting was set up in AZ.

On April 01 2016 06:47 farvacola wrote:

It's almost as though requiring employers to let their employees go vote is a good idea

On April 01 2016 06:45 Gorsameth wrote:

Time has a lot to do with it.
The real busy time if when everyone comes home from work and goes to vote. Most people are not able to vote before or during work.

On April 01 2016 06:57 BallinWitStalin wrote:



Woah, wait a minute. Is this not required in the US?

The reason I get to go in the morning is because it's mandatory for employers to give employees a portion of the day off to go vote in Canada. I think employers are allowed to stagger it, but they have to give it.

If that's not the case in the U.S. that is super fucked up.

Edit:

Apparently it's only required in Canada if you can't get three consecutive hours to vote. That's kind of shitty, actually, my country is even fucking this up. Everyone should get an hour or two to vote, no questions asked.

From the elections Canada website:
"By law, everyone who is eligible to vote must have three consecutive hours to cast their vote on election day. If your hours of work do not allow for three consecutive hours to vote, your employer must give you time off."

On April 01 2016 06:58 puerk wrote:

have a culture where there are (mostly) work free days (like sunday in some european countries) and use that to let people vote... if you dont have one, make a federal public holiday for it... this is not exactly rocket science

On April 01 2016 07:35 mahrgell wrote:
It is an intraparty vote...
Not sure why this should be protected by the state. Of course, nobody should be kept from voting in the general election or any other official elections. But what the parties do is pretty much their own business.
And if the parties decide, that they want to screw their own members over... hey, go ahead!

On April 01 2016 07:40 Gorsameth wrote:

Except it is not the parties organizing it in the individual states.

Thats how the bad situation in AZ could happening without it being the fault of the DNC.
Because they didn't organize the polling locations.

On April 01 2016 08:04 cLutZ wrote:
Its ironic, because its lax registration and polling rules that make the actual polling such a shitshow. If they made everyone pre-register, and bring photo ID (all are scannable in the states now) it would take 15 seconds to get a ballot.

"IF WE’RE gonna do what we did the other day,” Robert Bentley, the governor of Alabama, tells his aide in a recently released recording, “we’re gonna have to start locking the door.” Explaining himself, Mr Bentley—whose 50-year marriage ended last year—apologised for his “inappropriate” remarks but, despite the tape’s evidence, denied any “sexual activity".

...

Another, paradoxical aspect of the evangelical creed may contribute. Like other forms of Protestantism, only more so, it promises salvation by faith alone. Sin, in this schema, is both inevitable and forgivable. Wayne Flynt, a historian and minister, adduces two biblical verses that are impressed on young southern Christians: “There is none righteous, no, not one”, and “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Sinning and seeking forgiveness (so long as they are mainstream sins) is a recognised path to God and mark of faith. Falling short is not a bar to worship but an element of it. That philosophy, and its political advantages, were exemplified in Mr Bentley’s comments. “As a human being,” he said, “I do make mistakes.” His consolation was that “the God who loves me, loves me even through the mistakes.”

This outlook may help to account for the regularity of scandals in Godfearing places like Alabama, and many voters’ willingness ultimately to overlook them. It may also be pertinent to a national enigma: the rise of Donald Trump. One reading of his strong showing among evangelical Christians—he swept all the states mentioned above—is that his supporters are only notionally religious: witness the decline in his ratings among evangelicals who go to church every week. Some may be plumping for a profane braggart because they think him strong enough to guarantee their liberty, like some latter-day Persian king. Or, for some, Mr Trump’s yen to turn back the clock may by association imply a resurgence of Christianity, even if his own behaviour doesn’t.

But the conviction that no one is perfect—no, not one—may also be a factor in his seemingly contradictory appeal. Think how well he might do among the righteous if he found it in his heart to repent.

On April 01 2016 08:25 Naracs_Duc wrote:


They encourage pre-registration and require ZERO ID's in California and its still a shit show.

The problem is as much the voters as it is the "system." The system is merely a reflection of what the voters allow it to be.

Take campaign finance. Most of that money is used on TV Ads and lawn signs. Do you know what easily counteracts all that money special interest has? Showing up to vote. If everyone just shows up to vote then NO amount of money will get people to vote differently from their own self interest.

On April 01 2016 09:05 cLutZ wrote:


Not requiring IDs makes waits worse. Its like buying groceries with a Check vs. a Credit card. With IDs you scan>Person's face and address pops up on screen, Green means registered, Red means not. If green you get your ballot (here its a card that lets you use the machine). If red, you hand them an absentee ballot and they leave. The ballot comes with instructions to include a copy of 2 ids, one photo, and 2 envelopes of mail you have received.

The more strict the requirements, the more quickly the actual lines will proceed.