|
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 October 13 2020 20:58 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 20:33 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2020 16:52 Neneu wrote:On October 13 2020 10:36 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2020 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2020 10:20 Danglars wrote:
Lines at polling places three weeks before the election are inconveniences, not suppression. Vote in a holiday or ask voters if they want to pay more for more polling locations. There are far poorer countries that manage to run elections better than the US. Frankly, suppression might be less damning than the level of incompetence it would require for the state to be so remarkably and uniquely bad at running elections. I’m all in favor of Election Day holidays and no-cause absentee ballots. I also wait for hours early in the morning and late in the evening to vote. I don’t say the Democrats in my state are suppressing my vote. This feels more like speculation than actual demonstrated evidence (and, like Trump speculation, people should ask for evidence). Oh come on Danglars, there have been done a lot of research about this, a ton of litigation and it is a very well known problem. Making it hard for people to vote is the opposite of what democracy is about, in other countries this would be a huge scandal. I thought you were a person who placed high value in freedom and democracy? Stand by your values or acknowledge that they aren't really what you care about. Last time I looked at these charges happening in Georgia (Stacey Abrams refused to respect the outcome of the election), it wound up being an insane mixture of suppositions and ignorance of statistics. Historically high black turnout (as percentage of voters), historically high registrations, normal upkeep of voter rolls, Republican opposition to closure of some precincts, and Democratic-passed laws somehow attributed to malign Republicans. It makes me wonder how many other of these stories are slanted crocks. The reports in that case omitted context and only showed one side of the story. And like I said earlier, Democracy as a principle and federalism along with it mean that states I don’t live in get the choice to vote for absentee ballot law and candidates that will change precinct designations. Smug Europeans don’t get a vote in how our Democracy functions, and the way California chooses poll workers and precincts isn’t the same way Georgia or Maryland chooses to run things. “But I don’t like the result of Democracy” isn’t the dunk people think. And proving a negative (aka It Happened unless you conclusively prove It Didn’t Happen) won’t work out too good for you either. Pardon me while I celebrate record turnout (in places like Georgia for instance) in the 2018 midterms, even when it disfavored my political side. You are treading on some strange ground here. Wouldn't you agree that it being as easy as possible to vote for anyone who wants to is a good thing? Thus, the question arises why it seems to be so hard to vote for some people who want to in the US. And why that problem isn't fixed by now. There are a few explanations for this, but none of them make the US look good. In stead of wondering about that and thinking about how to fix this, you instead choose to attack everyone who talks about this as "smug europeans", or "people not liking the result of democracy"
Voting is one of the most important things you do in this republic. I don’t view getting off your ass to register to vote, and standing in a line for a couple hours to be impediments tantamount to actual voting suppression. It’s your vote and it’s not hard. Go make it a holiday or request an absentee ballot if this isn’t easy enough for voters.
You just presume “it seems to be so hard to vote for some people” like you aren’t sweeping up people who have no idea what to vote for and no desire to be heard or register a voice on the issues. I might as well ask you “it seems to be so hard for Democrats to look at all the evidence before forming an opinion on subjects.” Classic assume the point, and force the opposing side to prove the negative. (And again, bring better foundations for argument or arguments themselves if you don’t want the charge of laziness or smug condescension)
Omg first day voting was up 41% from 4 years ago and can you believe there were lines?!?!
Maybe take a week off of following politics if records set three weeks before the actual day of the election is your metric for dastardly influence.
|
High voter turnout =/= low voter suppression.
I do agree that long lines aren't necessarily because of voter suppression though. Might just be a sign that the authorities weren't ready for eager everyone is to get rid of Trump.
|
On October 13 2020 21:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 20:58 Simberto wrote:On October 13 2020 20:33 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2020 16:52 Neneu wrote:On October 13 2020 10:36 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2020 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2020 10:20 Danglars wrote:
Lines at polling places three weeks before the election are inconveniences, not suppression. Vote in a holiday or ask voters if they want to pay more for more polling locations. There are far poorer countries that manage to run elections better than the US. Frankly, suppression might be less damning than the level of incompetence it would require for the state to be so remarkably and uniquely bad at running elections. I’m all in favor of Election Day holidays and no-cause absentee ballots. I also wait for hours early in the morning and late in the evening to vote. I don’t say the Democrats in my state are suppressing my vote. This feels more like speculation than actual demonstrated evidence (and, like Trump speculation, people should ask for evidence). Oh come on Danglars, there have been done a lot of research about this, a ton of litigation and it is a very well known problem. Making it hard for people to vote is the opposite of what democracy is about, in other countries this would be a huge scandal. I thought you were a person who placed high value in freedom and democracy? Stand by your values or acknowledge that they aren't really what you care about. Last time I looked at these charges happening in Georgia (Stacey Abrams refused to respect the outcome of the election), it wound up being an insane mixture of suppositions and ignorance of statistics. Historically high black turnout (as percentage of voters), historically high registrations, normal upkeep of voter rolls, Republican opposition to closure of some precincts, and Democratic-passed laws somehow attributed to malign Republicans. It makes me wonder how many other of these stories are slanted crocks. The reports in that case omitted context and only showed one side of the story. And like I said earlier, Democracy as a principle and federalism along with it mean that states I don’t live in get the choice to vote for absentee ballot law and candidates that will change precinct designations. Smug Europeans don’t get a vote in how our Democracy functions, and the way California chooses poll workers and precincts isn’t the same way Georgia or Maryland chooses to run things. “But I don’t like the result of Democracy” isn’t the dunk people think. And proving a negative (aka It Happened unless you conclusively prove It Didn’t Happen) won’t work out too good for you either. Pardon me while I celebrate record turnout (in places like Georgia for instance) in the 2018 midterms, even when it disfavored my political side. You are treading on some strange ground here. Wouldn't you agree that it being as easy as possible to vote for anyone who wants to is a good thing? Thus, the question arises why it seems to be so hard to vote for some people who want to in the US. And why that problem isn't fixed by now. There are a few explanations for this, but none of them make the US look good. In stead of wondering about that and thinking about how to fix this, you instead choose to attack everyone who talks about this as "smug europeans", or "people not liking the result of democracy" Voting is one of the most important things you do in this republic. I don’t view getting off your ass to register to vote, and standing in a line for a couple hours to be impediments tantamount to actual voting suppression. It’s your vote and it’s not hard. Go make it a holiday or request an absentee ballot if this isn’t easy enough for voters. You just presume “it seems to be so hard to vote for some people” like you aren’t sweeping up people who have no idea what to vote for and no desire to be heard or register a voice on the issues. I might as well ask you “it seems to be so hard for Democrats to look at all the evidence before forming an opinion on subjects.” Classic assume the point, and force the opposing side to prove the negative. (And again, bring better foundations for argument or arguments themselves if you don’t want the charge of laziness or smug condescension) Omg first day voting was up 41% from 4 years ago and can you believe there were lines?!?! https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1315873493498634243Maybe take a week off of following politics if records set three weeks before the actual day of the election is your metric for dastardly influence.
Surely the inverse is true as well? If this is your metric for doing research into voter suppression, maybe you should look into it more thoroughly?
Records being set in a country where half of the population (at best) usually vote period can have a lot of fairly obvious explanations and wouldn't in any way be a counterpoint towards voter suppression. It wouldn't even be a point to say 'well clearly its not working' because without knowing the methods being used you can't gauge how many people are being prevented from voting.
And besides which, isn't the most obvious form of voter suppression - denying the vote to anyone with a criminal record - still very obviously in place?
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 21:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 20:58 Simberto wrote:On October 13 2020 20:33 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2020 16:52 Neneu wrote:On October 13 2020 10:36 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2020 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2020 10:20 Danglars wrote:
Lines at polling places three weeks before the election are inconveniences, not suppression. Vote in a holiday or ask voters if they want to pay more for more polling locations. There are far poorer countries that manage to run elections better than the US. Frankly, suppression might be less damning than the level of incompetence it would require for the state to be so remarkably and uniquely bad at running elections. I’m all in favor of Election Day holidays and no-cause absentee ballots. I also wait for hours early in the morning and late in the evening to vote. I don’t say the Democrats in my state are suppressing my vote. This feels more like speculation than actual demonstrated evidence (and, like Trump speculation, people should ask for evidence). Oh come on Danglars, there have been done a lot of research about this, a ton of litigation and it is a very well known problem. Making it hard for people to vote is the opposite of what democracy is about, in other countries this would be a huge scandal. I thought you were a person who placed high value in freedom and democracy? Stand by your values or acknowledge that they aren't really what you care about. Last time I looked at these charges happening in Georgia (Stacey Abrams refused to respect the outcome of the election), it wound up being an insane mixture of suppositions and ignorance of statistics. Historically high black turnout (as percentage of voters), historically high registrations, normal upkeep of voter rolls, Republican opposition to closure of some precincts, and Democratic-passed laws somehow attributed to malign Republicans. It makes me wonder how many other of these stories are slanted crocks. The reports in that case omitted context and only showed one side of the story. And like I said earlier, Democracy as a principle and federalism along with it mean that states I don’t live in get the choice to vote for absentee ballot law and candidates that will change precinct designations. Smug Europeans don’t get a vote in how our Democracy functions, and the way California chooses poll workers and precincts isn’t the same way Georgia or Maryland chooses to run things. “But I don’t like the result of Democracy” isn’t the dunk people think. And proving a negative (aka It Happened unless you conclusively prove It Didn’t Happen) won’t work out too good for you either. Pardon me while I celebrate record turnout (in places like Georgia for instance) in the 2018 midterms, even when it disfavored my political side. You are treading on some strange ground here. Wouldn't you agree that it being as easy as possible to vote for anyone who wants to is a good thing? Thus, the question arises why it seems to be so hard to vote for some people who want to in the US. And why that problem isn't fixed by now. There are a few explanations for this, but none of them make the US look good. In stead of wondering about that and thinking about how to fix this, you instead choose to attack everyone who talks about this as "smug europeans", or "people not liking the result of democracy" Voting is one of the most important things you do in this republic. I don’t view getting off your ass to register to vote, and standing in a line for a couple hours to be impediments tantamount to actual voting suppression. It’s your vote and it’s not hard. Go make it a holiday or request an absentee ballot if this isn’t easy enough for voters. You just presume “it seems to be so hard to vote for some people” like you aren’t sweeping up people who have no idea what to vote for and no desire to be heard or register a voice on the issues. I might as well ask you “it seems to be so hard for Democrats to look at all the evidence before forming an opinion on subjects.” Classic assume the point, and force the opposing side to prove the negative. (And again, bring better foundations for argument or arguments themselves if you don’t want the charge of laziness or smug condescension) Omg first day voting was up 41% from 4 years ago and can you believe there were lines?!?! https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1315873493498634243Maybe take a week off of following politics if records set three weeks before the actual day of the election is your metric for dastardly influence.
Do you think voter suppression is something that happens on a large scale anywhere in the country?
|
On October 13 2020 21:11 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 20:58 Simberto wrote:On October 13 2020 20:33 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2020 16:52 Neneu wrote:On October 13 2020 10:36 Danglars wrote:On October 13 2020 10:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 13 2020 10:20 Danglars wrote:
Lines at polling places three weeks before the election are inconveniences, not suppression. Vote in a holiday or ask voters if they want to pay more for more polling locations. There are far poorer countries that manage to run elections better than the US. Frankly, suppression might be less damning than the level of incompetence it would require for the state to be so remarkably and uniquely bad at running elections. I’m all in favor of Election Day holidays and no-cause absentee ballots. I also wait for hours early in the morning and late in the evening to vote. I don’t say the Democrats in my state are suppressing my vote. This feels more like speculation than actual demonstrated evidence (and, like Trump speculation, people should ask for evidence). Oh come on Danglars, there have been done a lot of research about this, a ton of litigation and it is a very well known problem. Making it hard for people to vote is the opposite of what democracy is about, in other countries this would be a huge scandal. I thought you were a person who placed high value in freedom and democracy? Stand by your values or acknowledge that they aren't really what you care about. Last time I looked at these charges happening in Georgia (Stacey Abrams refused to respect the outcome of the election), it wound up being an insane mixture of suppositions and ignorance of statistics. Historically high black turnout (as percentage of voters), historically high registrations, normal upkeep of voter rolls, Republican opposition to closure of some precincts, and Democratic-passed laws somehow attributed to malign Republicans. It makes me wonder how many other of these stories are slanted crocks. The reports in that case omitted context and only showed one side of the story. And like I said earlier, Democracy as a principle and federalism along with it mean that states I don’t live in get the choice to vote for absentee ballot law and candidates that will change precinct designations. Smug Europeans don’t get a vote in how our Democracy functions, and the way California chooses poll workers and precincts isn’t the same way Georgia or Maryland chooses to run things. “But I don’t like the result of Democracy” isn’t the dunk people think. And proving a negative (aka It Happened unless you conclusively prove It Didn’t Happen) won’t work out too good for you either. Pardon me while I celebrate record turnout (in places like Georgia for instance) in the 2018 midterms, even when it disfavored my political side. You are treading on some strange ground here. Wouldn't you agree that it being as easy as possible to vote for anyone who wants to is a good thing? Thus, the question arises why it seems to be so hard to vote for some people who want to in the US. And why that problem isn't fixed by now. There are a few explanations for this, but none of them make the US look good. In stead of wondering about that and thinking about how to fix this, you instead choose to attack everyone who talks about this as "smug europeans", or "people not liking the result of democracy" Voting is one of the most important things you do in this republic. I don’t view getting off your ass to register to vote, and standing in a line for a couple hours to be impediments tantamount to actual voting suppression. It’s your vote and it’s not hard. Go make it a holiday or request an absentee ballot if this isn’t easy enough for voters. You just presume “it seems to be so hard to vote for some people” like you aren’t sweeping up people who have no idea what to vote for and no desire to be heard or register a voice on the issues. I might as well ask you “it seems to be so hard for Democrats to look at all the evidence before forming an opinion on subjects.” Classic assume the point, and force the opposing side to prove the negative. (And again, bring better foundations for argument or arguments themselves if you don’t want the charge of laziness or smug condescension) Omg first day voting was up 41% from 4 years ago and can you believe there were lines?!?! https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1315873493498634243Maybe take a week off of following politics if records set three weeks before the actual day of the election is your metric for dastardly influence.
I'd agree with making voting day a holiday. Or just vote on sundays.
Standing in line for a few hours just seems pointless. Let's move away from the "voter suppression" point for a while and just stay on this. Yes, you can do it. Yes, a lot of people will do it. But it still doesn't serve any purpose, and it should be avoided if possible. If a lot of people spend a few hours in line, that is a lot of time wasted. In this time, these people don't do anything productive, so quite a bit of economic value gets wasted. And the people also don't get to relax during this time, so a lot of free time is also wasted. I don't think this is reasonable, and i think the amount of money you would need to invest to make people not stand in line would easily be regained simply due to the additional total productivity gained by the people not wasting their time in line. As such, it seems like a pretty clear economic case that opening enough polls to not make people waste thier time in line is a good idea, and the government should pursue this.
I don't see any virtue in standing in line, and it doesn't make voting less important if it is less of a hassle, and neither do i think that voting should be harder than it absolutely needs to be.
Now, lets talk about dastardly influence, as you call it. You have a two party system, which in general is very gamey. I find it very hard to believe that no one in any of the parties would notice that making the people who vote against you on average less likely to vote is a net positive to you, and increases your chances of winning the game. I also cannot believe that none of them would make the connection between it being harder to vote and people being less likely to vote. Also, a lot of people in both parties do have the power to selectively make it harder to vote for people. Given these three ideas, it is very likely that some politicians are indeed making it harder to vote for people more likely to vote for the other guy.
And even if this is not the case, it is definitively a valid concern that this could happen. And even the implication that it could be happening hurts the system by delegitimizing it. Thus, people on both sides of the isle who are interested in the integrity of the system and who do not want to look as if they are gaming the system by making it harder to vote for voters of the other party should work towards making voting as easy as possible for everyone.
|
Northern Ireland26799 Posts
I can’t lie I don’t think I’d be voting given my current circumstances if I had to wait 2/3 hours in line.
My employer is being rather unhelpful with regards to me having to self-isolate, in requesting unpaid leave for university exams and all other sorts.
I don’t exactly have a huge amount of faith in them playing ball for going to vote in such a circumstance.
Luckily in actuality I don’t have to worry about this as we have lots of voting stations. My walking route to work only takes a slight deviation to the polls and I’ve never taken longer than 10 minutes to fulfil my civic duty.
In isolation a delay in voting isn’t in and of itself any kind of suppressive, especially if voting days are holidays. It becomes so when it dovetails with other structural impediments, poorer workers often have less flexible employers. Not everyone drives so having lots of accessible locations becomes critical, etc etc.
|
Cries of "it's not that hard to vote" are the cries of the privileged.
|
On October 13 2020 22:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Cries of "it's not that hard to vote" are the cries of the privileged.
It doesn't have to be like that, though.
Obligatory Germany plug: Everyone is automatically registered for elections, everyone gets a letter telling them that there is an election and where to vote, and every election also allows for mail-in voting, which just requires you filling out the backside of said piece of paper and sending it in.
I also haven't been in a line in a polling place that took longer than 15 minutes, usually there is no line at all. Also, elections are on a sunday, so most people don't have to work.
So this stuff is possible. It is not an unsolvable problem to make elections not annoying.
|
It's not a big stretch to conclude that the hurdles are left standing to filter out people who can't clear hurdles.
|
On October 13 2020 22:06 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2020 22:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Cries of "it's not that hard to vote" are the cries of the privileged. It doesn't have to be like that, though. Obligatory Germany plug: Everyone is automatically registered for elections, everyone gets a letter telling them that there is an election and where to vote, and every election also allows for mail-in voting, which just requires you filling out the backside of said piece of paper and sending it in. I also haven't been in a line in a polling place that took longer than 15 minutes, usually there is no line at all. Also, elections are on a sunday, so most people don't have to work. So this stuff is possible. It is not an unsolvable problem to make elections not annoying.
Your argument is founded on the somewhat naive assumption that the issue is a lack of good solutions. Those in power in the US are well aware that there are proven solutions to election accessibility. The problem isn't one of logistics, it's one of core principles. There is a political party in the USA with mass media and a hardened base which is at this point basically openly advocating for making voting more difficult and less accessible, and is quite happy to use underhanded tactics to limit the ability or ease at which their perceived opponents cast their ballots.
You could show them a better way. You could even show that the better way is cheaper and would take less work. Wouldn't matter. They won't do it because they see easier voting as actively against their interests of minority rule.
|
I would also put this in the "lesser evil" basket for Democrats. It's not as if they were oblivious to how to make voting more practical for the decades they were in power or the years they had a supermajority under Obama.
Neither party is really pro-democratization in the US. Democrats exploit the lesser evil/learned helplessness dynamic to make their failure to make voting practical all these years acceptable.
|
Correct. Some states without early voting were controlled by democrats for decades. It was originally to disenfranchise the poor, not democrats (cough KY). Granted, the democrats have moved quite a bit from even 15 years ago.
|
|
|
On October 13 2020 23:55 Nevuk wrote:
Correct. Some states without early voting were controlled by democrats for decades. It was originally to disenfranchise the poor, not democrats (cough KY). Granted, the democrats have moved quite a bit from even 15 years ago.
Democrats are stuck explaining everything as incompetence while maintaining those incompetent people must stay in power.
What blows my mind more than anything is how willing otherwise intelligent people are to accept that both parties treat their supporters like abject morons.
To that point: Virginia accidentally cut a cable and shut down their voter registration on the last day for this election
"What does that have to do with Democrats?" Well, would the Dem controlled House, Senate, and Governor been competent (or not intentionally limiting democratic participation) they could have joined the 21st century (20th?) and implemented same day registration months ago so this wouldn't be preventing countless people from participating in the election next month.
|
Yes, the voting system in the US has been awful for decades, and it's not because people are used to not voting. I'm quite certain it's the opposite.
Trump asking his supporters to be his poll watchers. Should be counted as voter intimidation. What's the excuse for this one ?
|
Both parties have run poll watchers for ages. There are laws on the books regarding them.
|
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context.
|
On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context.
The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said:
Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”
He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this:
I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.
|
Yes, we know, he's technically said these things. But how many times did Trump stammer before finally telling the Proud Boys to "stand by"? He was stuttering and asking for names, like you need any of that to make a blanket condemnation of White Supremacy. He was looking for an out because he can't condemn them. What he does in his next breath also matters, and White Supremacists routinely cite his support and their excitement at how he talks about them. That's what dogwhistling is. Of course he's going to bake plausible deniability into his rhetoric, any White Supremacist who isn't stupid about it does that. You're just biting down on it hard, like it's something we haven't considered. "It's all just liberal bias". Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
