EPTIf it weren't mail-in voting, there would be something else that the Trump cult would exploit to claim rigging. You are missing the point that they don't need actual facts. The GOP has managed to produce a post-factual electorate.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2312
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11629 Posts
If it weren't mail-in voting, there would be something else that the Trump cult would exploit to claim rigging. You are missing the point that they don't need actual facts. The GOP has managed to produce a post-factual electorate. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18838 Posts
| ||
|
Belisarius
Australia6233 Posts
The metric that really matters is the total number of valid votes, ideally for the groups being suppressed. There are so many voters who are prevented from casting a vote right now that a jump in the error rate, even for the group of interest, might be negligible next to an overall increase in participation. There are definitely tradeoffs. - Current US suppression overwhelmingly targets poor minorities. - Postal voting hinders participation for people with low literacy and civil engagement. There is a lot of overlap between those groups, but for postal, the poor migrant at least has the option to battle through the forms. He may not have the option to take a day off work and stand in line for five hours. The category that struggles with postal voting is also much more uniformly spread between red and blue. Also, yes, I don't think anyone is saying that a postal vote should be mandatory, just available. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11629 Posts
And the "waiting for 5 hours to vote on a work day" thing is another problem which is really, really easy to solve. Have more polling stations, and have voting day be a national holiday, or at least move it to a sunday. But in the US two party system, suppressing a group of voters who is more likely to vote for the other party is as good as getting a vote yourself. So one of the parties will always try to block anything that makes it more easy for the voters who would vote for the other party to vote. The whole thing is honestly pretty ugly. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
I don't understand how the Supreme Court doesn't clean up that mess. It's exactly what they exist for. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On May 17 2020 00:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: Have the democrats ever engaged in voter suppression or is it a GOP thing only? I know that both parties are guilty when it comes to gerrymandering although the GOP has gone completely nuts with their red map thing. I don't understand how the Supreme Court doesn't clean up that mess. It's exactly what they exist for. I'm sure GH has mentioned before that the Dems have attempted it, but they're a bit more skillful in hiding their intents. For the most part, I think there are instances where the Dems aren't going to change polling locations/times if it helps their opponents. I think that's the most egregious thing (I'll do a cursory search for more information). I don't think the SC wants to get involved because they want to leave it to the states to figure out and overruling the states would be met with some kind of conspiracy theory depending who was in office and what the court makeup looked like at the time. If there was anything to come out involving voter rights from this SC and it didn't do enough to help alleviate any issues, then it would be seen as the Rep majority SC fixing elections for years to come. Edit: After a few searches, nothing really pops up that concludes that Dems are anywhere near as bad as Reps in voter suppression. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On May 17 2020 00:27 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I'm sure GH has mentioned before that the Dems have attempted it, but they're a bit more skillful in hiding their intents. For the most part, I think there are instances where the Dems aren't going to change polling locations/times if it helps their opponents. I think that's the most egregious thing (I'll do a cursory search for more information). I don't think the SC wants to get involved because they want to leave it to the states to figure out and overruling the states would be met with some kind of conspiracy theory depending who was in office and what the court makeup looked like at the time. If there was anything to come out involving voter rights from this SC and it didn't do enough to help alleviate any issues, then it would be seen as the Rep majority SC fixing elections for years to come. Edit: After a few searches, nothing really pops up that concludes that Dems are anywhere near as bad as Reps in voter suppression. Yeah I don't trust GH whatsoever to ever provide anything but a vitriolic argument of accusation when it comes to the dems, no matter the context, the nuances and the facts. That being said, I guess it's much harder to suppress the GOP electorate than minorities or young voters. Maybe it's better to look at primaries, for example, to search for example of systematic democratic voter suppression. But I never heard anything substantial in that regard while democratic gerrymandering is well documented. Thing is, voter suppression is in itself bonker. I never heard anything even resembling voter suppression in France nor even accusations of such things against any politician. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
And it's weird even to me to read about voter suppression in some places here in the states. Everyone knows what is going on is pushing legal boundaries and yet nothing is ever done about it. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7384 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On May 17 2020 01:25 Zambrah wrote: Which Bernie supporters here did not vote for him I meant as in the US as a whole. Not TL specifically. Although I think some supported him but didn't vote in the primary. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7384 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On May 17 2020 01:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I think the dems just do a massive media push to disenfranchise those that they don't want running/in power. You can kind of see it in the case of Bernie (although his supporters here did NOTHING to help his cause by not going to vote) and in Yang to an extent. Which is funny because now we're basically using one of Yang's major positions, a modified UBI of sorts. And it's weird even to me to read about voter suppression in some places here in the states. Everyone knows what is going on is pushing legal boundaries and yet nothing is ever done about it. It's hard to compare having really a powerful media and PR machine and using it against people you don't want to get elected, and abusing your legislative power to prevent people to vote. What's insane is that people in charge don't realize / don't care about the fact that this threatens in the short / medium term american democracy. If you let a party change the rules so that it cannot be voted out of power, you are not in a democracy anymore. It's already arguably the case in some states if I have understood properly what I've read recently. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On May 17 2020 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: It's hard to compare having really a powerful media and PR machine and using it against people you don't want to get elected, and abusing your legislative power to prevent people to vote. What's insane is that people in charge don't realize / don't care about the fact that this threatens in the short / medium term american democracy. If you let a party change the rules so that it cannot be voted out of power, you are not in a democracy anymore. It's already arguably the case in some states if I have understood properly what I've read recently. True. I was looking at it as they pushed Biden over Bernie so now Bernie's voters feel as if they're votes aren't being cared about enough. Which is what we got in 2016. Abusing your legislative power via gerrymandering and voter restrictions like ID requirements or closing polling places/not giving enough in areas that need them, is just disgusting. The people in charge think they are working for short term gain but they're, like you said, sacrificing short term and long term. Edit: I wanted to post this as well. If he gets rid of anyone who can check his "power", who's left? Half the state department is either not staffed or under staffed. There's so many interim acting heads, it's difficult to understand just how crippled the institutions designed to oversee public health, safety, and welfare really is. "I have learned that the Office of the Inspector General had opened an investigation into Secretary Pompeo," Engel said. "Mr. Linick's firing amid such a probe strongly suggests that this is an unlawful act of retaliation." Engel did not offer further detail but promised to press the State Department for answers. A Democratic aide on Capitol Hill elaborated that "the OIG was looking into the secretary's misuse of a political appointee at the Department to perform personal tasks for himself and Mrs. Pompeo." In recent weeks, the president also removed Michael Atkinson as inspector general of the intelligence community, as well as Glenn Fine, who had been named to oversee the federal government's response to the coronavirus pandemic. Source | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16097 Posts
On May 17 2020 01:34 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I meant as in the US as a whole. Not TL specifically. Although I think some supported him but didn't vote in the primary. A few big Democratic states like New York didn't even get the chance. I voted him for him back in early March right before lockdown went into effect. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9005 Posts
On May 17 2020 05:53 Vindicare605 wrote: A few big Democratic states like New York didn't even get the chance. I voted him for him back in early March right before lockdown went into effect. I think it was at that time, Biden had mathematically locked up the nomination and people were hoping to go into the convention, contested. I could be wrong. The point being, and this may not fall on the people, but the delegates all fell into Biden's lap and Bernie was kind of searching for a way to keep the race alive. I don't know if he could have done so. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7384 Posts
| ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
On May 17 2020 00:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: Have the democrats ever engaged in voter suppression or is it a GOP thing only? I know that both parties are guilty when it comes to gerrymandering although the GOP has gone completely nuts with their red map thing. I don't understand how the Supreme Court doesn't clean up that mess. It's exactly what they exist for. I'm guessing the Supreme Court believes that it is more important to allow something if it is constitutional even if it is undemocratic. Unfortunately, that has led to disappointing decisions like Citizens United and Rucho v. Common Cause. That said, I cannot really blame the Supreme Court for doing this because I believe that their main purpose is to uphold the constitution. I don't think Democrats should expect the Supreme Court to do what is utilitarian or good for democracy, because that is not their purpose at all. Edit: Simply put, it is not the Supreme Court's responsibility to enforce sensible legislation. They are more concerned with what is allowed/up to states to decide (i.e. constitutional) rather than what is good, which unfortunately gives unscrupulous politicians a lot of latitude.to act malevolently. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23459 Posts
On May 17 2020 00:09 Biff The Understudy wrote: Have the democrats ever engaged in voter suppression or is it a GOP thing only? I know that both parties are guilty when it comes to gerrymandering although the GOP has gone completely nuts with their red map thing. I don't understand how the Supreme Court doesn't clean up that mess. It's exactly what they exist for. I would point to New York as a long-standing example of Democrats engaging in voter suppression. It's been cited by Republicans to justify their own voter suppression efforts. The Atlantic titled their piece in 2018 New York's Worst-in-the-Country Voting System The supposedly progressive state is disenfranchising its citizens. New York Times titles theirs: Why Deep Blue New York Is ‘Voter Suppression Land’ It opens with some of the examples:+ Show Spoiler + In 2016, when the governor of Ohio was asked why he had signed a bill to limit early voting, he had a simple retort: He pointed to another state that had no early voting at all. When North Carolina’s governor was sued for cutting early voting in his own state, his lawyers cited that same state as rebuttal. In each case, the state in question was New York. Deep blue, liberal-ideal New York. Despite its reputation for sterling progressivism, New York has some of the most restrictive election laws in the nation. It is one of just 12 states without early voting. No other state holds its federal and state primary elections on different days. Voters who want to change their party affiliation must do so more than a year before the election, a rule that famously left Ivanka Trump unable to vote for her father in the 2016 Republican primary. “New Yorkers would be aghast if anyone accused New York of voter suppression,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. But, she said, “the antiquated nature of our laws and the failure to enact any common-sense reforms for years puts us kind of in voter suppression land.” If you open it up to the primary process that's when it ranges from an election that has electoral rules controlled by the state government and a club vote that is dictated by the party depending on what state you're in so the blame and act can be blurred. One example of this is Texas where students and others had to wait hours to vote, but it is a Republican state where the state party runs their primary through the state government. Whereas you have Iowa which is a Republican state that ran its primary through the Democratic party exclusively and the AP was unable/unwilling to call that race due to irregularities in voter counts and results reported. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On May 17 2020 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote: I would point to New York as a long-standing example of Democrats engaging in voter suppression. It's been cited by Republicans to justify their own voter suppression efforts. The Atlantic titled their piece in 2018 New York's Worst-in-the-Country Voting System The supposedly progressive state is disenfranchising its citizens. New York Times titles theirs: Why Deep Blue New York Is ‘Voter Suppression Land’ It opens with some of the examples:+ Show Spoiler + In 2016, when the governor of Ohio was asked why he had signed a bill to limit early voting, he had a simple retort: He pointed to another state that had no early voting at all. When North Carolina’s governor was sued for cutting early voting in his own state, his lawyers cited that same state as rebuttal. In each case, the state in question was New York. Deep blue, liberal-ideal New York. Despite its reputation for sterling progressivism, New York has some of the most restrictive election laws in the nation. It is one of just 12 states without early voting. No other state holds its federal and state primary elections on different days. Voters who want to change their party affiliation must do so more than a year before the election, a rule that famously left Ivanka Trump unable to vote for her father in the 2016 Republican primary. “New Yorkers would be aghast if anyone accused New York of voter suppression,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. But, she said, “the antiquated nature of our laws and the failure to enact any common-sense reforms for years puts us kind of in voter suppression land.” If you open it up to the primary process that's when it ranges from an election that has electoral rules controlled by the state government and a club vote that is dictated by the party depending on what state you're in so the blame and act can be blurred. One example of this is Texas where students and others had to wait hours to vote, but it is a Republican state where the state party runs their primary through the state government. Whereas you have Iowa which is a Republican state that ran its primary through the Democratic party exclusively and the AP was unable/unwilling to call that race due to irregularities in voter counts and results reported. If you bothered to read your own article you would have known that what they talk about is the fact that the voting system in New York is shit, not that one party targets voters of the other one and make sure they don't vote. Oh and actually, here is a quote, again, from your own article: "Mr. Cuomo and Democrats in both legislative chambers have pushed bills to overhaul the state’s elections for years, but the Republican-controlled Senate had consistently refused to call them to the floor for a vote, despite a declared desire to lift New York’s abysmal voter turnout rates. Low turnout among Democrats has historically helped Republicans overcome their enrollment disadvantage. Critics have also cited concerns about the cost of early voting." Thanks to prove me once again right about you and, well... good to have you back..?? | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
But people don't really like to understand these tradeoffs. The open ballot increases integrity, increases accuracy, but enables coercion. This is they system we have for Congress. They vote on the record. No one would seriously doubt that the votes recorded on a bill are very accurate, aside from the possibility of some near-perfect imposer like a Mission Impossible face mimic scenario. OTOH, those people are highly subject to cohesion from voters and donors. All steps that take a voting system away from that system will reduce the reliability of vote counts. The biggest step in that is the secret ballot. Most people, including myself, like the secret ballot. But most people are not willing to admit that the secret ballot is a really unsecure system, it is. It was consistently abused throughout our history through at least the 1910s. And for an entity like Tammany Hall mail in voting would have been a wet dream. Entire political movements rose up in response to this which resulted in the gold standards being in person voting of a preregistered person with some kind of verification. Often, originally, this verification was because your polling center people knew who you were and verified your identity. In other cases the USPS and mail was relied upon. Today, the gold standard for integrity (while maintaining the secret ballot) is still in-person voting with dual records (paper + electronic), with strong identification requirements at the polls. This is achieved with ID checks, signature comparisons, and other things depending on the jurisdiction. We could obviously improve the security with things like iris checks or DNA tests, but at a huge loss of privacy and increased burdens on the right to vote. We could decrease the security and increase access by removing the requirement to pre-register and provide proof of residency. We can improve access even more with mail in voting, but that means we need to add additional burdens to even closely approach the integrity levels of in person voting, and it is hard to decrease coercion compared to the secret in a booth ballot. You need skilled cryptographers working in your state government to enable such things. Some open source solutions exist, but who actually thinks governments will choose those? Has any government even implemented a public-private key system at the levels of PGP for this? No. | ||
| ||
