Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
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!

The Republican War on Voting

enlightenedbumenlightenedbum 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.

enlightenedbum on
Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
jimsmittyjeffinvacB557
«13456767

Posts

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Elections have consequences.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    Somehow, I don't think it was in the electorate's mind to vote so some people couldn't vote.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    I'm sure you would have had this reaction if the Democrats, say, stripped all former rebellious territories of Congressional Representation in 2009.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Your first link doesnt work as I believe you intended.

    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.

    Dr Mario Kart on
    jeffinva
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    ....Seriously? Your reaction to stripping away voting rights is "Elections have consequences"?

    Remember, people: Republicans LOVE the Constitution!

    metroid_sig.jpg
    jeffinvacB557
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    So does the Constitution

    nexuscrawler on
    jeffinvacB557
  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    I don't understand how ending same day registration is constitutional. Doesn't that infringe on people who turn 18 on election day? It seems odd that something like this could get through. It'd be like being told you could by beer the day after you were 21.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote:
    I don't understand how ending same day registration is constitutional. Doesn't that infringe on people who turn 18 on election day? It seems odd that something like this could get through. It'd be like being told you could by beer the day after you were 21.

    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

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    So does the Constitution
    I'm sure the courts will sort out which of these laws are Constitutional and which aren't. Those that go too far will be struck down, but those that are in line with the Constitution will remain in place, and people will have to live with them.

    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.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    So does the Constitution
    I'm sure the courts will sort out which of these laws are Constitutional and which aren't. Those that go too far will be struck down, but those that are in line with the Constitution will remain in place, and people will have to live with them.

    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.

    So an argument could be made for electoral reform.

  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Nobody has mentioned gerrymandering. The things going on arent directly related to redistricting and are simply not something that the opposition does. They get flack for going too far in the other direction. Illegals voting! Dead people voting!

    The courts will sort it out, yes. 5-4 in the Supreme Court in an easily predictable direction.

    Dr Mario Kart on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    Such as preventing future free and fair elections.

    tea-1.jpg
    cB557
  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    So does the Constitution
    I'm sure the courts will sort out which of these laws are Constitutional and which aren't. Those that go too far will be struck down, but those that are in line with the Constitution will remain in place, and people will have to live with them.

    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.

    Playing with electoral districts doesn't effect voting the way that being told you're no longer allowed to vote does, though.

  • MarathonMarathon Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    So does the Constitution
    I'm sure the courts will sort out which of these laws are Constitutional and which aren't. Those that go too far will be struck down, but those that are in line with the Constitution will remain in place, and people will have to live with them.

    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.

    Many of these new laws go far beyond gerrymandering. Your response of "elections have consequences" absurdly dismissive.

    Dumb Hero wrote: »
    "Okay, you take 2d4 damage from the ogre's dick impaling your 2inch anus"
    Satan! Look here!
    cB557
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Just... Just, the worstRegistered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    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.

    Sorry, disagree. I get indignant when either side gerrymanders or plays political games to try and keep a firm, permanent grasp on power.

    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, if I could get a 3D printer that could fabricate a vagina, I'd never leave the house again.
    cB557
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    So does the Constitution
    I'm sure the courts will sort out which of these laws are Constitutional and which aren't. Those that go too far will be struck down, but those that are in line with the Constitution will remain in place, and people will have to live with them.

    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.

    For one, gerrymandering isn't the problem it gets blown up to be. For two, who's talking about gerrymandering?

    tea-1.jpg
  • AbsalonAbsalon Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    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.

    Absalon on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    moniker wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    So does the Constitution
    I'm sure the courts will sort out which of these laws are Constitutional and which aren't. Those that go too far will be struck down, but those that are in line with the Constitution will remain in place, and people will have to live with them.

    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.

    For one, gerrymandering isn't the problem it gets blown up to be. For two, who's talking about gerrymandering?

    The Texas redistricting plan DoJ thinks intentionally discriminates against Latinos is the one thing mentioned here that is.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    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.

    Caedwyr on
    steam_sig.png
    knitdancB557
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Absalon wrote:
    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 whole point of winning elections is so you can pass laws to advance your particular ideological view of what's best for the country. It's odd to criticize the party in power for using legislation to advance its interests. That's the whole point of legislation.

    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.
    Caedwyr wrote:
    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.
    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?

    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Absalon wrote:
    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 whole point of winning elections is so you can pass laws to advance your particular ideological view of what's best for the country. It's odd to criticize the party in power for using legislation to advance its interests. That's the whole point of legislation.

    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.

    Restricting the franchise is almost by definition antithetical to Democracy.

    tea-1.jpg
    cB557
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Absalon wrote:
    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 whole point of winning elections is so you can pass laws to advance your particular ideological view of what's best for the country. It's odd to criticize the party in power for using legislation to advance its interests. That's the whole point of legislation.

    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.

    So you're fine with people passing laws that, through accident or design, actively make it more difficult for your opponents to get elected?

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Republicans: Loving the Constitution until it allows Democrats to be voted in.

    metroid_sig.jpg
    cB557
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Caedwyr wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.

    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.

    Godwin'd on the first page.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Just... Just, the worstRegistered User regular
    edited October 2011
    So, Modern Man, you wouldn't have any problem with Obama signing it into law that registered Republicans need to bring 8 forms of ID to the booth in order to vote?

    I mean, elections have consequences and all.

    joshofalltrades on
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, if I could get a 3D printer that could fabricate a vagina, I'd never leave the house again.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    Absalon wrote:
    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 whole point of winning elections is so you can pass laws to advance your particular ideological view of what's best for the country. It's odd to criticize the party in power for using legislation to advance its interests. That's the whole point of legislation.

    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.

    So you're fine with people passing laws that, through accident or design, actively make it more difficult for your opponents to get elected?
    Reasonable people are free to disagree on which laws should be passed (within the bounds of the Constitution). If some of those laws make it more difficult for political opponents to win elections, so be it.
    So, Modern Man, you wouldn't have any problem with Obama signing it into law that registered Republicans need to bring 8 forms of ID to the booth in order to vote?

    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.



    Modern Man on
    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Absalon wrote:
    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 whole point of winning elections is so you can pass laws to advance your particular ideological view of what's best for the country. It's odd to criticize the party in power for using legislation to advance its interests. That's the whole point of legislation.

    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.

    So you're fine with people passing laws that, through accident or design, actively make it more difficult for your opponents to get elected?
    Reasonable people are free to disagree on which laws should be passed (within the bounds of the Constitution). If some of those laws make it more difficult for political opponents to win elections, so be it.

    So you aren't actually in favour of elections. Or, at least, not elections that more fully express the will of the people.

    tea-1.jpg
  • BogartBogart Mr. Lady Anime Registered User regular
    MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?

    cB557
  • VanguardVanguard the champion of i-don't-give-a-fuck what tremendously unlikableRegistered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    The whole point of winning elections is so you can pass laws to advance your particular ideological view of what's best for the country. It's odd to criticize the party in power for using legislation to advance its interests.

    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?

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Absalon wrote:
    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 whole point of winning elections is so you can pass laws to advance your particular ideological view of what's best for the country. It's odd to criticize the party in power for using legislation to advance its interests. That's the whole point of legislation.

    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.

    So you're fine with people passing laws that, through accident or design, actively make it more difficult for your opponents to get elected?
    Reasonable people are free to disagree on which laws should be passed (within the bounds of the Constitution). If some of those laws make it more difficult for political opponents to win elections, so be it.

    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.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    I think the real question we should be asking is why does Modern Man hate America and Freedom?

    metroid_sig.jpg
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Bogart wrote:
    MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?
    I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure a law aimed at only one political party would be unconstitutional.
    Thats the thing. The deciding of just what is constitutional is deeply political and tied to elections. The next President may get to appoint one or even two people to the Supreme Court (with confirmation of course, but the winner of the office of President wins Congressional seats also). If the test of whether something was Constitutional was something resembling non-partisan, then your position would be more reasonable. If a law was unfair, then it would be sorted out, sure. I get that. Thats not in reality how things work.

    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.

  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited October 2011
    I don't see why this view is surprising.

    MM has been saying similar things around here for ages.

    Forar on
    sigthree.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Bogart wrote:
    MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?
    I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

    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."

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Just... Just, the worstRegistered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    So, Modern Man, you wouldn't have any problem with Obama signing it into law that registered Republicans need to bring 8 forms of ID to the booth in order to vote?

    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.

    But targeting demographics that are known, in every meaningful way, to favor one party is totally different, right?

    Give me a break.

    joshofalltrades on
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Man, if I could get a 3D printer that could fabricate a vagina, I'd never leave the house again.
    cB557
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    I'm pretty sure a law aimed at only one political party would be unconstitutional.
    Thats the thing. The deciding of just what is constitutional is deeply political and tied to elections. The next President may get to appoint one or even two people to the Supreme Court (with confirmation of course, but the winner of the office of President wins Congressional seats also). If the test of whether something was Constitutional was something resembling non-partisan, then your position would be more reasonable. If a law was unfair, then it would be sorted out, sure. I get that. Thats not in reality how things work.

    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.
    If you don't have faith in the American judicial system to determine Constitutionality of laws, then this whole discussion is pointless.

    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.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Bogart wrote:
    MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?
    I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

    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.

  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    What's the problem?
    Infringement on democratic principles is abhorrent regardless of what the constitution says?

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Bogart wrote:
    MM, really? Purposely disenfranchising voters doesn't strike you as, say, corrupt?
    I haven't seen any laws that I would consider to be unreasonable when it comes to elections. You'll always find cases where election officials or county clerks act like douchebags, but I see nothing wrong with, for example, laws requiring people to show ID to vote.

    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."
    I'm a strong proponent of the notion that people in, say, Arizona, should be free to run their affairs as they see fit, within the bounds of the Constitution. If the people of a state, through their elected representatives, decide to enact more restrictive election laws, that's not any of my business.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

«13456767
Sign In or Register to comment.