Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our Stupid Voting System! Now With Reform Legislation?
enlightenedbum
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
As we all know, the GOP won quite a few elections in 2010. While there have been a lot of consequences to this, one that has been largely overlooked in the national media is the effect this will have on people's ability to vote. The GOP is waging a systemic campaign to deny the right to vote from young people, minorities, and the poor. Coincidentally all Democratic voters. The Brennan Center did a study on these changes in the law and came to the conclusion that up to 5 million Americans could be affected. All in the name of solving a problem that no one can find examples of, much less wide spread examples of: voter fraud.
The White House has noticed, and the DoJ is suing to block a Texas redistricting plan that limits the representation of minorities, but outside the Jim Crow South, the VRA doesn't have as much power and it becomes much more difficult for the federal government to block the states.
Meanwhile, women who have been voting for seven decades are being denied voter ID cards, despite bringing her old voter registration card, birth certificate, lease, and rent receipt. Because she didn't have a copy of her marriage certificate when she adopted her husband's name. Coincidentally, she's black. And says it was easier to vote during the Jim Crow era.
This is one of the most important things currently going on in this country, but only a few Democrats are talking about it. So let's talk about it.
The White House has noticed, and the DoJ is suing to block a Texas redistricting plan that limits the representation of minorities, but outside the Jim Crow South, the VRA doesn't have as much power and it becomes much more difficult for the federal government to block the states.
Meanwhile, women who have been voting for seven decades are being denied voter ID cards, despite bringing her old voter registration card, birth certificate, lease, and rent receipt. Because she didn't have a copy of her marriage certificate when she adopted her husband's name. Coincidentally, she's black. And says it was easier to vote during the Jim Crow era.
This is one of the most important things currently going on in this country, but only a few Democrats are talking about it. So let's talk about it.
enlightenedbum on
My cousin made this game: Gem Pop. It's legitimately fun, particularly for people who enjoy Bejewled, Dr. Mario, Tetris, etc. kinds of games. Only two bucks! If you try it out, PM me with what you think of it.
Posts
Rigorous Scholarship
Somehow, I don't think it was in the electorate's mind to vote so some people couldn't vote.
I'm sure you would have had this reaction if the Democrats, say, stripped all former rebellious territories of Congressional Representation in 2009.
While it is the case that standard GOP policy has been for less people to vote for a long time, I do have to hand it to them for really kicking it into overdrive recently. Voter ID laws (and then shutting down DMVs [guess where]), reducing or ending early voting, making voter registration drives harder to do, ending same day registration.
And where people can vote, splitting electoral votes in states where it would help them and ending the splitting of electoral votes in Nebraska because they split for the first time ever in 2008.
Its all completely brazen and overt. They dont even care how obvious it is. One of the voter ID laws doesnt allow student IDs but does allow hunting licences. Its all pretty amazing.
....Seriously? Your reaction to stripping away voting rights is "Elections have consequences"?
Remember, people: Republicans LOVE the Constitution!
So does the Constitution
Yeah but 18 year olds are more likely to vote Democratic, so who gives a fuck
Elections have consequences after all
And if one of those consequences is removing voting rights that make it harder to vote than it was in 1890 then oh well too bad so sad
And neither side has the right to get indignant when it comes to gerrymandering. Both political parties love playing with electoral districts in order to shore up their positions.
Rigorous Scholarship
So an argument could be made for electoral reform.
The courts will sort it out, yes. 5-4 in the Supreme Court in an easily predictable direction.
Such as preventing future free and fair elections.
Playing with electoral districts doesn't effect voting the way that being told you're no longer allowed to vote does, though.
Many of these new laws go far beyond gerrymandering. Your response of "elections have consequences" absurdly dismissive.
Sorry, disagree. I get indignant when either side gerrymanders or plays political games to try and keep a firm, permanent grasp on power.
For one, gerrymandering isn't the problem it gets blown up to be. For two, who's talking about gerrymandering?
If the constitution allows for brazenly hampering democracy using some methods, but not others, then the constitution isn't worth much. Why not just sign legislation that says every twentieth ballot cast for the democrat candidate has to burned to compensate for *chortle* voter fraud? Oh wait, because then the scumbags wouldn't be able to go and hide behind "the constitution".
Republicans are effectively trying to seize power via legislation. If that is possible, legislation is corrupted, and not worth as much to society. Laws are supposed to prevent barbarism, not sublimate it.
The Texas redistricting plan DoJ thinks intentionally discriminates against Latinos is the one thing mentioned here that is.
So what you're saying is the November 6, 1932 election in Germany had consequences, right? This appears to be the type of election you are referring to, where the intents of democracy can be subverted by elected representatives.
Edit: What I was going for with the above, was a reference to the disenfranchiesment of jewish voters that followed the election of the national socialist party, though I probably should have found another less charged example of a democratically elected group using their power to disenfranchise their opponents.
The reason the Nazi example sprang to mind, is some of my recent readings have brought it back to my intention that the Germans in 1932 weren't really all that different from any other people and how easily things spiraled out of control. Regular people enabled and allowed this to happen. Many people in other countries were quite sympathetic to the national socialist movement and big business was fully on side with them. When you look at the little nitty-gritty details you realize that what happened wasn't really that unique.
Being on the losing side sucks, but it's part of democracy. So long as the laws being passed are Constitutional, the losing side needs to suck it up and work harder to get elected next time. But, if the winning party keeps passing laws you don't like but they keep getting re-elected, then you're shit out of luck.
Well, yes, they did have consequences, obviously. But the comparison ends there. If the GOP was planning some sort of coup, you might have an argument. But the GOP's policy is the same as it's always been- work within the legal democratic process to win elections and then pass laws in line with the GOP platform. If those laws are unconstitutional, they'll get struck down.
What's the problm?
Rigorous Scholarship
Restricting the franchise is almost by definition antithetical to Democracy.
So you're fine with people passing laws that, through accident or design, actively make it more difficult for your opponents to get elected?
Godwin'd on the first page.
I mean, elections have consequences and all.
I'm pretty sure a law aimed at only one political party would be unconstitutional. I don't have a problem with laws requiring ID to vote, though 8 pieces of ID is pretty excessive.
Rigorous Scholarship
So you aren't actually in favour of elections. Or, at least, not elections that more fully express the will of the people.
So you admit part of the GOP ideological view is to prevent groups that do not usually support their party from voting?
And you see nothing wrong with this?
The problem with letting the courts clean up all these laws is by the time they're finished, the elections affected by these laws may already have taken place.
Rigorous Scholarship
We're sure a lot of the stuff going on would be unconstitutional and/or illegal. But thats really not going to be how it goes down if it goes to this Supreme Court.
MM has been saying similar things around here for ages.
You're a conservative right? So you only want government involved when there's a pressing problem to solve, in theory.
Find evidence of the problem this legislation is supposed to solve, unless that problem is "black/Latino/poor people are voting."
But targeting demographics that are known, in every meaningful way, to favor one party is totally different, right?
Give me a break.
If the system is so broken, there's no reason to even talk about it. You should be focusing on creating a new system from the ground up.
Rigorous Scholarship
In a vaccuum, I can see where you're coming from. Indeed I have to show ID when I vote in elections. However these laws are in conjunction with making said ID more difficult to obtain. It would be my opinion that any voter ID law should make sure that there is a provision for someone to easily acquire a ID which will be accepted at the polling booth, free of charge.
Rigorous Scholarship