|
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 |
On May 17 2020 15:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 11:31 GreenHorizons wrote: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.” I would say it is conclusively not exclusively a GOP practice. 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..??
I don't know what the aggression is for but you asked if Democrats ever engaged in voter suppression and they have. In the NYT article it specifically addresses that it isn't just a Republican thing.
Not only Republicans are to blame for the inertia of voting reform in New York, according to Wendy Weiser, the director of the Democracy Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. Machine politics and the advantages of incumbency make many politicians wary of changing the system.
“Elected officials often oppose changes to the electoral system in which they were elected,” Ms. Weiser said. “It’s the incumbency protection agency: ‘It worked for me, it must be a good system.’”
Which aligns with an agreed upon here problem of US politics that it's difficult to get the politicians elected through a system that favors them to change it to one that doesn't.
There's also the case Vind and Zam mentioned where Democrats are in court for trying to cancel the Presidential primary
I don't think it's accurate to say my providing information about Democrats role in voter suppression upon you submitting the question should be construed as a vitriolic attack of accusation, but I don't know how else to have answered or provided it so as not to be seen that way.
EDIT: A lot of people think caucuses (and the long lines we saw in several states in 2016 and 2020) in primaries should be considered voter suppression as well.
|
I mean a caucus is at least as much voter suppression as id requirements. It's humorous reading this, because europeans in this thread are all on board with republican voter suppression as an established fact, but in the US the most common complaint of voter suppression is ID requirements, and as far as I have seen that is completely accepted in european systems.
I have voted 30+ times in my life and never took more then 30 mins out of my day. Have voted early quite a few times without difficulty. It seems to be primarily a regional thing tbh, and I wholeheartedly agree that good access to polls and reasonable time requirements should absolutely be goals of a functioning voting system. I am less convinced that ID is an unreasonable requirement. Pre-registration I have mixed feelings on. It is kind of necessary for a lot of local or regional elections (congressional districts as well) but shouldnt necessarily be needed for a presidential election. Either general or primary.
|
In most European countries ID is mandatory and every citizen has it. I got one when i turned 18 and used it hundreds if not thousand of times since. Government offices, university, banking, voting... it is used everywhere and its really convinient. I mean, i know Americans do not want it beacuse "hurr durr taking away our liberty" so that option is not on the table. But this is convinient because we have system already covering every citizen so no additional documentation/information is required. We are usuing something which is already there. Litteraly the only things i need to do to vote is:
1)Locate the polling station (can be diffrent places depending on the election type)
2)Go there and vote ( i carry my ID with my all the time, like most people here do)
|
On May 17 2020 11:18 Anc13nt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah. I guess the idea of the Supreme Court is that they are guardians of the constitution and therefore of democracy. It only works if people are interested in keeping democracy alive in the first place. I am quite sure it's not the case anymore for a portion of the GOP, that would probably be quite happy to take the Hungarian way.
But I guess that anyway no democratic institution can really survive hyperpartisanship long term. Democracy implies bridge building, compromises and dialogue. History will tell whether or not Obama was the last one to attempt any of those.
|
On May 17 2020 16:05 Atreides wrote:
I mean a caucus is at least as much voter suppression as id requirements. It's humorous reading this, because europeans in this thread are all on board with republican voter suppression as an established fact, but in the US the most common complaint of voter suppression is ID requirements, and as far as I have seen that is completely accepted in european systems.
I have voted 30+ times in my life and never took more then 30 mins out of my day. Have voted early quite a few times without difficulty. It seems to be primarily a regional thing tbh, and I wholeheartedly agree that good access to polls and reasonable time requirements should absolutely be goals of a functioning voting system. I am less convinced that ID is an unreasonable requirement. Pre-registration I have mixed feelings on. It is kind of necessary for a lot of local or regional elections (congressional districts as well) but shouldnt necessarily be needed for a presidential election. Either general or primary.
From what I have understood, gerrymandering is a much more serious threat than pure voter suppression. I think it has already kind of irremediably broken democracy in some places. In 2018, Wisconsin had a 53% democratic popular vote translate into 36% of the seats in the State Assembly. At that point, it's basically become a one party state; the GOP has created conditions where it could never, ever lose an election again - and since they make the rules, it's never going to change.
|
On May 17 2020 16:31 Silvanel wrote:
In most (European countries ID is mandatory and every citizen has it. I got one when i turned 18 and used it hundreds if not thousand of times since. Government offices, university, banking, voting... it is used everywhere and its really convinient. I mean, i know Americans do not want it beacuse "hurr durr taking away our liberty" so that option is not on the table. But this is convinient because we have system already covering every citizen so no additional documentation/information is required. We are usuing something which is already there. Litteraly the only things i need to do to vote is:
1)Locate the polling station (can be diffrent places depending on the election type)
2)Go there and vote ( i carry my ID with my all the time, like most people here do)
Most European countries are like this. In fact, I think the ability to prove your identity at any time is mandatory everywhere. But even before it was, you had to identify yourself when voting. However, I remember that at least in the Netherlands it worked differently. You got sent a "vote card" (stempas) at home (that still happens). With that card you could vote at your designated polling station. This was possible, because even before national ID laws existed, people were obliged to register where they lived. I am not quite sure when that obligation was started, but hazarding a guess I'd say the early 70s, when the Netherlands started a national census.
At your polling station, your name got crossed off the list and you went and voted. This way voter fraud is somewhat possible: anybody holding that vote card could go and vote in your place (as log as the polling personnel also didn't catch them).
Nowadays you need both your vote card and a valid ID, because they dropped the requirement to vote at a fixed polling station. I haven't lived in the Netherlands for a while now and don't remember exactly how it works. I vote remotely, which works a bit different.
So yes, national ID laws facilitate identifying yourself when voting, but at least in the case of the Netherlands, before national IDs were a thing, a weaker form of identification for the elections was already in place. Basically the vote card was a temporary ID that allowed you to vote at your designated location. It was only very slightly stronger than simply showing up and saying your name, but it was already at least a 2-step process. I vaguely remember my parents getting voter cards already as a kid, so that system has been in place for a long time (at least since the early 90s).
|
On May 17 2020 17:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 16:05 Atreides wrote:
I mean a caucus is at least as much voter suppression as id requirements. It's humorous reading this, because europeans in this thread are all on board with republican voter suppression as an established fact, but in the US the most common complaint of voter suppression is ID requirements, and as far as I have seen that is completely accepted in european systems.
I have voted 30+ times in my life and never took more then 30 mins out of my day. Have voted early quite a few times without difficulty. It seems to be primarily a regional thing tbh, and I wholeheartedly agree that good access to polls and reasonable time requirements should absolutely be goals of a functioning voting system. I am less convinced that ID is an unreasonable requirement. Pre-registration I have mixed feelings on. It is kind of necessary for a lot of local or regional elections (congressional districts as well) but shouldnt necessarily be needed for a presidential election. Either general or primary. From what I have understood, gerrymandering is a much more serious threat than pure voter suppression. I think it has already kind of irremediably broken democracy in some places. In 2018, Wisconsin had a 53% democratic popular vote translate into 36% of the seats in the State Assembly. At that point, it's basically become a one party state; the GOP has created conditions where it could never, ever lose an election again - and since they make the rules, it's never going to change.
It's certainly disheartening, but all is not lost. In Michigan, for example, a neutral redistricting commission was established by ballot initiative, meaning signatures were collected and an item was put on a ballot, all without legislative involvement. Naturally, Michigan Republicans cried foul and took the measure to federal court, but luckily, even the arch-conservative on the three-judge panel upheld the commission as a valid exercise of democratic principles. The commission will have its first convening sometime in the next year, and the '22 elections in Michigan will be a great place to look in terms of parsing the commission's impact.
That option is available in places like Wisconsin, it's just a matter of getting the signatures and making sure the process isn't fucked with.
|
On May 17 2020 17:52 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 16:31 Silvanel wrote:
In most (European countries ID is mandatory and every citizen has it. I got one when i turned 18 and used it hundreds if not thousand of times since. Government offices, university, banking, voting... it is used everywhere and its really convinient. I mean, i know Americans do not want it beacuse "hurr durr taking away our liberty" so that option is not on the table. But this is convinient because we have system already covering every citizen so no additional documentation/information is required. We are usuing something which is already there. Litteraly the only things i need to do to vote is:
1)Locate the polling station (can be diffrent places depending on the election type)
2)Go there and vote ( i carry my ID with my all the time, like most people here do) Most European countries are like this. In fact, I think the ability to prove your identity at any time is mandatory everywhere. But even before it was, you had to identify yourself when voting. However, I remember that at least in the Netherlands it worked differently. You got sent a "vote card" (stempas) at home (that still happens). With that card you could vote at your designated polling station. This was possible, because even before national ID laws existed, people were obliged to register where they lived. I am not quite sure when that obligation was started, but hazarding a guess I'd say the early 70s, when the Netherlands started a national census. At your polling station, your name got crossed off the list and you went and voted. This way voter fraud is somewhat possible: anybody holding that vote card could go and vote in your place (as log as the polling personnel also didn't catch them). Nowadays you need both your vote card and a valid ID, because they dropped the requirement to vote at a fixed polling station. I haven't lived in the Netherlands for a while now and don't remember exactly how it works. I vote remotely, which works a bit different. So yes, national ID laws facilitate identifying yourself when voting, but at least in the case of the Netherlands, before national IDs were a thing, a weaker form of identification for the elections was already in place. Basically the vote card was a temporary ID that allowed you to vote at your designated location. It was only very slightly stronger than simply showing up and saying your name, but it was already at least a 2-step process. I vaguely remember my parents getting voter cards already as a kid, so that system has been in place for a long time (at least since the early 90s).
This is more or less exactly how voting works in the US from my perspective. I never went to any extra effort to get an ID to vote, I use the same thing I use for any of the other purposes listed. Government, banking, university etc. The ID I use to buy alchohol is good enough to vote with. If I vote at my assigned polling place they have a list with my name on it, they check off and thats it. If I vote somewhere else its a question ballot that needs verified but I've done it many times. I dunno. Like obviously I am not in the social groups that are being 'suprressed' but I do not think our voting system differs fundamentally from the systems described in the last few posts. Which makes me think that the problem is more to do with general societal issues and problems in the us for those social groups rather then the voting system in particular. (For example, people should get time off to go vote.) I read the posts in last 2 pages in this thread and wonder what exactly people think voting in the US actually is. Because for the most part it is not like the horror stories and I don't think its precisely a systemic problem. Although there are of course things that should be better, certain posters tend to dramatize it quite a bit.
Gerrymandering is a separate issue that is definitely more of a problem.
|
You do realize that there are literally 50 different ID regimes in the US, right? There’s some push for uniformity with federal Real ID requirements, but states are still free to basically do what they want with IDs and access to them.
Naturally, the folks who want to require ID for voting are not the same folks pushing for a uniform federal ID scheme, which is part of how one can tell this isn’t really about the tenets of easy proof of identity.
|
In UK you don't need an ID to vote. You only need a registered address. At the polling station; gave my street, door, name; they crossed said name off the list. No queuing needed. I mark the sheet, fold it in half and pop it in the slotted box. Whole process takes less than 3 minutes.
ID is not needed for a high voter confidence in the legitimacy of the voter process. Except in USA it appears.
|
On May 17 2020 17:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 11:18 Anc13nt wrote: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. Yeah. I guess the idea of the Supreme Court is that they are guardians of the constitution and therefore of democracy. It only works if people are interested in keeping democracy alive in the first place. I am quite sure it's not the case anymore for a portion of the GOP, that would probably be quite happy to take the Hungarian way. But I guess that anyway no democratic institution can really survive hyperpartisanship long term. Democracy implies bridge building, compromises and dialogue. History will tell whether or not Obama was the last one to attempt any of those.
it really is an unfortunate state of affairs because if gerrymandering were actually non-justiciable (which is what the supreme court ruled), then it should fall on legislators to create a new constitutional amendment banning gerrymandering. However, it is obviously impossible that this will happen in the near future because for most US politicians, the incentive of winning state or local elections is stronger than preserving the status of democracy. It just goes to show how rotten US politicians are..
|
Biden appears to be steering on the left, leaving behind his "return to normality" primary platform and trying to work with the progressives to push for post Corona sweeping economic changes.
I hope that they will follow up on that if he is elected. The post corona reconstruction will shape the country for decades to come. Also, progressives and liberals need to meet half way if anything is ever gonna get done. I guess it's the moment.
Source
|
On cnn it was said that a rather large part of the population (30% i believe) wories about bidens age and if he will be able to sit through 4 years in office. Maybe that can also be an opportunity to get the progressives fully on board, If biden takes a progressive running who would replace him in such a situation. Though that might on the other hand also scare certain voters and trump might use it as an argument in his campaign.
|
On May 17 2020 16:05 Atreides wrote:
I mean a caucus is at least as much voter suppression as id requirements. It's humorous reading this, because europeans in this thread are all on board with republican voter suppression as an established fact, but in the US the most common complaint of voter suppression is ID requirements, and as far as I have seen that is completely accepted in european systems.
The problem isn't the system, it is how it is used. See also the citizenship question on the census. Is that a horrible question we shouldn't be asking? No, it is important information we should be collecting. However, one of the people involved with it died and his daughter was kind enough to release information that showed the sinister reasons behind the question.
If all US states gave IDs to everyone for free then no one would have a problem with voter ID laws. You'll notice that key difference between the US and Europe.
On May 17 2020 15:38 cLutZ wrote:
Has any government even implemented a public-private key system at the levels of PGP for this? No.
Estonia is pretty close to what you're looking for.
|
On May 17 2020 22:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
In UK you don't need an ID to vote. You only need a registered address. At the polling station; gave my street, door, name; they crossed said name off the list. No queuing needed. I mark the sheet, fold it in half and pop it in the slotted box. Whole process takes less than 3 minutes.
ID is not needed for a high voter confidence in the legitimacy of the voter process. Except in USA it appears.
Interesting that the UK with all its CCTV security all over London (and I assume other large cities) doesn't require you to carry an ID on you. That is one of the reasons there wasn't a lot of pushback against requiring ID to vote in Netherlands: the pushback was already against the general ID laws, and the battle was lost. So seeing as you're required to carry an ID anyway, requiring it for voting is not a big deal.
|
I find it funny that the same people that carry phones that can be used to track them and spy on them 24/7 are opposed to such a minor thing as a personal ID card.
|
On May 17 2020 23:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 16:05 Atreides wrote:
I mean a caucus is at least as much voter suppression as id requirements. It's humorous reading this, because europeans in this thread are all on board with republican voter suppression as an established fact, but in the US the most common complaint of voter suppression is ID requirements, and as far as I have seen that is completely accepted in european systems. The problem isn't the system, it is how it is used. See also the citizenship question on the census. Is that a horrible question we shouldn't be asking? No, it is important information we should be collecting. However, one of the people involved with it died and his daughter was kind enough to release information that showed the sinister reasons behind the question. If all US states gave IDs to everyone for free then no one would have a problem with voter ID laws. You'll notice that key difference between the US and Europe. Show nested quote +On May 17 2020 15:38 cLutZ wrote:
Has any government even implemented a public-private key system at the levels of PGP for this? No. Estonia is pretty close to what you're looking for.
BankID as used in Sweden is pretty close as well. Though not used for elections yet you can file changed residency location, declare taxes and similar things. If you physically vote before or at the actual date you require a physical ID card such as a drivers license, pass port or ID card. It is not free here but can usually be gotten within 2 weeks and 2 visits (1 for photography). Had multiple people I work with vote prior to election day when it suited them.
Electronic IDs are used for secure web login to Swedish authorities, banks, health centers (allowing people to see their medical records and prescriptions and book doctors visits), and companies such as pharmacies. Mobile BankID also allows the Swish mobile payment service, utilized by 78 percent of the Swedish population in 2019, at first mainly for payments between individuals.[22] BankID was previously used for university applications and admissions, but this was prohibited by Swedbank since universities utilized the system for distribution of their own student logins. Increasingly, BankID is used as an added security for signing contracts.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_identification#Sweden
Basically a third party verification that you are who say you are. Saves so much time and effort not having to get something mailed to you and then sign it and send back. Also used to verify online payments with supporting vendors. Still some things that require physical signing or dedicated codes but it is decreasing over time.
|
the year is 2040, the Democratic party is still pretending Stacy Abrams is an up and coming powerhouse
|
On May 18 2020 00:51 Yurie wrote:
BankID as used in Sweden is pretty close as well. Though not used for elections yet you can file changed residency location, declare taxes and similar things. If you physically vote before or at the actual date you require a physical ID card such as a drivers license, pass port or ID card. It is not free here but can usually be gotten within 2 weeks and 2 visits (1 for photography). Had multiple people I work with vote prior to election day when it suited them.
Need government subsidies for people who can't afford to get one. It being free for everyone was poor phrasing for what I meant.
|
On May 18 2020 01:28 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2020 00:51 Yurie wrote:
BankID as used in Sweden is pretty close as well. Though not used for elections yet you can file changed residency location, declare taxes and similar things. If you physically vote before or at the actual date you require a physical ID card such as a drivers license, pass port or ID card. It is not free here but can usually be gotten within 2 weeks and 2 visits (1 for photography). Had multiple people I work with vote prior to election day when it suited them. Need government subsidies for people who can't afford to get one. It being free for everyone was poor phrasing for what I meant.
As far as I know it is not possible to get for free here. Required in a few contexts outside voting (picking up packages, medicines, drivers license) though so would be hard to live without it for a lot of people.
€35-40 depending on passport or ID card.
€28 for renewal of drivers license + physical photo that you get printed or take (for a fee) at the transport department office. (Assume physical since it still requires sent in request.)
I honestly don't see that as unreasonable as they last 5-10 years depending on type. For an annual cost below €5 + visit costs/years for the cheapest solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
