Options

How can we survive without the D and R?

245

Posts

  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    I think the concern is that it would unnecessarily split the black vote amongst several candidates.

    Doc on
  • Options
    SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    [Tycho?] wrote: »
    Doing away with party affiliations would be the best thing for the US right now, on any level, be it for a city, state or even the whole country. US politics are becoming insanely polarized, and as the economic crisis wears on, as wars wear on, I think the polarization is only going to get more extreme. With only two functioning parties, its the loonies on the fringe that make the difference.

    Most people depend on party affiliation to get an idea of your position on things.

    People being less informed about who they are voting for doesn't seem like a recipe for improved political outcomes.

    Speaker on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    I don't see how. It presupposes that black people will vote for someone based on their party. Which is true for the vast majority of people who vote. Including self described independents.

    moniker on
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    I think the concern is that it would unnecessarily split the black vote amongst several candidates.

    See, there's the racism -- right there. Isn't it possible that "the black vote" is split because the black voters aren't a monolithic voting block? Wouldn't it be better to have officials appeal for votes based on their ideas rather than the D?

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    The History of the United States would like to have a word with you. Unless you're of the opinion that the problems that caused the creation of the Voting Rights Act are gone?

    Don't put words into my mouth. In this specific instance we aren't dealing with discrimination. We instead have a justice overturning the will of the people based upon some pretty shitty reasoning.

    Yall on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    Non-affiliated persons could still run in their elections before this law, right?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The justice department's argument doesn't make much sense to me.

    But I would withhold judgement because I know absolutely nothing about the topic of voter discrimination problems in North Carolina.

    So it doesn't make sense to me in the same way that, say, investing in stocks doesn't make sense to me.

    Speaker on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    I think the concern is that it would unnecessarily split the black vote amongst several candidates.

    See, there's the racism -- right there. Isn't it possible that "the black vote" is split because the black voters aren't a monolithic voting block? Wouldn't it be better to have officials appeal for votes based on their ideas rather than the D?

    You're ignoring the existence of primaries and how it influences the first past the post plurality system that most everybody uses here by winnowing the field prior to election day.

    *edit*
    And how does the D not represent their ideas in broad swathes?

    moniker on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Doc wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    I think the concern is that it would unnecessarily split the black vote amongst several candidates.

    See, there's the racism -- right there. Isn't it possible that "the black vote" is split because the black voters aren't a monolithic voting block? Wouldn't it be better to have officials appeal for votes based on their ideas rather than the D?

    The D represents their ideas in a way that most people who aren't paying attention can parse.

    Doc on
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    Non-affiliated persons could still run in their elections before this law, right?

    Yeah, but they had more arduous requirements put on them than for a partisan official in terms of signatures &c.

    moniker on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    The History of the United States would like to have a word with you. Unless you're of the opinion that the problems that caused the creation of the Voting Rights Act are gone?

    Don't put words into my mouth. In this specific instance we aren't dealing with discrimination. We instead have a justice overturning the will of the people based upon some pretty shitty reasoning.

    That was an honest question. I'm questioning your definition of this as racist and saying that the majority is always able to get their candidate elected if they are a traditionally discriminated against racial minority.

    This particular case, they really should switch the elections to districts for the city council and do the time honored gerrymandering of seats to satisfy the VRA. Which is probably natural, knowing the US.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Speaker wrote: »
    The justice department's argument doesn't make much sense to me.

    But I would withhold judgement because I know absolutely nothing about the topic of voter discrimination problems in North Carolina.

    So it doesn't make sense to me in the same way that, say, investing in stocks doesn't make sense to me.

    Yeah, the particulars seem to point in favour of the town. But at the same time I'm not really steeped in the history of Kinston, &c.

    moniker on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    I'm entirely unsympathetic to the Republican party's trouble with courting non-white people.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    That was an honest question. I'm questioning your definition of this as racist and saying that the majority is always able to get their candidate elected if they are a traditionally discriminated against racial minority.

    This particular case, they really should switch the elections to districts for the city council and do the time honored gerrymandering of seats to satisfy the VRA. Which is probably natural, knowing the US.

    But having been discriminated against in the past doesn't mean you will be in the present. Where does it end?

    You should only get 'your' candidate in if that person gets the most votes. It's not like there are people with clubs at polling places. It's not like the majority is being kept down here through some institutionalized illiteracy programs that necessitates a single letter breaking everything down into a symbol that says "Ok everyone, White folks click this, Black folks click this."

    If you want respresentation, you vote.

    Regarding the primaries, what is preventing participation? Eveyone is acting as though there is some unseen exclusion on some level, but I've seen no evidence in this case to imply any such thing.

    Yall on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    But it's all good because they are small town Southern blacks; that means they don't matter.

    Yes clearly I'm the one who is pushing for them to be gulled into accidentally voting for a politican who will not champion their interests.

    It is not clear to me whether you two are following the intentially-obtuse Republican playbook of puerile "racism ju-jitsu" that is convincing to no one besides white republicans and closeted racists, or whether you're just straight-up ignorant of what racism means and has meant in this country.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Erring on the side of "not rigging elections against black folks" in North Carolina is a good thing. Giving over the conduct of elections to the "local populace" has been nothing but trouble South of the Mason-Dixon line for centuries now.

    Except that this was a majority black town, with a majority of black voters during this election that is currently run completely by Democrats.

    edit: It also presupposes that Blacks will exclusively vote Democrat in perpetuity, which is racist to suggest.

    So the DOJ regulates the conduct of elections to the degree that they won't let a locality unintentionally destroy the integrity of their elections in a region especially known for doing this? Gosh it's tyranny.

    Also, I'm not sure what your definition of "racism" is but it seems to be different from mine.

    It certainly is racist because it implies that they are incapable of being elected to public office even though they are the majority.

    But it's all good because they are small town Southern blacks; that means they don't matter.

    Yes clearly I'm the one who is pushing for them to be gulled into accidentally voting for a politican who will not champion their interests.

    It is not clear to me whether you two are following the intentially-obtuse Republican playbook of puerile "racism ju-jitsu" that is convincing to no one besides white republicans and closeted racists, or whether you're just straight-up ignorant of what racism means and has meant in this country.

    More likely I'm happy that a town is trying to move past this crap and is told, in very racist terms by the DOJ, that they aren't allowed to. You forget that this is a Democrat-run town, with a majority being black. Maybe that town is really, honestly trying to focus on themselves instead of partisanship?

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    Googling this just took me to a bunch of sites where the commentary consists of "THIS is real racism" type of posts. I do love it when RedState is concerned about such things. Progress!

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    Googling this just took me to a bunch of sites where the commentary consists of "THIS is real racism" type of posts. I do love it when RedState is concerned about such things. Progress!

    It's equally interesting that there's so little concern by liberals who hold themselves above the hoi polloi in these areas.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Googling this just took me to a bunch of sites where the commentary consists of "THIS is real racism" type of posts. I do love it when RedState is concerned about such things. Progress!

    It's equally interesting that there's so little concern by liberals who hold themselves above the hoi polloi in these areas.

    No. I could look at my previous posts I made where I mock the idea of non-partisan elections, but I'm too lazy to do that, so let me just give you the condensed version: it's a retarded idea. And since I think it's stupid, I'll allow myself to be amused when I see that some conservatives' first reaction to this is... to post youtubes of black people saying racist things. I thought that was hilarious, and anybody with a sense of humor would, too.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yes clearly I'm the one who is pushing for them to be gulled into accidentally voting for a politican who will not champion their interests.

    What? How are they going to accidentally vote for someone who doesn't champion their interests absent party labels? I'm willing to accept it might result in less voter turn out in general, as people lack the iniative to find out where a given candidate stands without some shorthand labelling. But I don't see how a lack of a R or D is going to lead to them being duped.

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    That was an honest question. I'm questioning your definition of this as racist and saying that the majority is always able to get their candidate elected if they are a traditionally discriminated against racial minority.

    This particular case, they really should switch the elections to districts for the city council and do the time honored gerrymandering of seats to satisfy the VRA. Which is probably natural, knowing the US.

    But having been discriminated against in the past doesn't mean you will be in the present. Where does it end?

    You should only get 'your' candidate in if that person gets the most votes. It's not like there are people with clubs at polling places. It's not like the majority is being kept down here through some institutionalized illiteracy programs that necessitates a single letter breaking everything down into a symbol that says "Ok everyone, White folks click this, Black folks click this."

    If you want respresentation, you vote.

    Regarding the primaries, what is preventing participation? Eveyone is acting as though there is some unseen exclusion on some level, but I've seen no evidence in this case to imply any such thing.

    Right, when does the Voting Rights Act need to expire, and how can we tell? I suspect, based purely on last year's Presidential exit polls, that voting in the South remains largely based on race.
    Alabama:
    White 88-10 McCain
    Black 98-2 Obama

    Arkansas:
    White 68-30 McCain
    Black 95-5 Obama

    Georgia:
    White 76-23 McCain
    Black 98-2 Obama

    Louisiana:
    White 84-14 McCain
    Black 94-4

    Mississippi:
    White 88-11 McCain
    Black 98-2 Obama

    North Carolina:
    White 64-35 McCain
    Black 95-5 Obama

    South Carolina:
    White 73-26 McCain
    Black 96-4 Obama

    Tennessee:
    White 63-34 McCain
    Black 94-6 Obama

    Texas:
    White 73-26 McCain
    Black 98-2 Obama
    Hispanic (since it's Texas) 63-35 Obama

    Virginia:
    White 60-39 McCain
    Black 92-8 Obama

    Especially in the Deep South, these states aren't polarized by partisanship so much as race. Suggesting to me that the VRA is still necessary.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Just saying that a majority Black city electing anyone other than a Black Democrat indicates they were tricked is pretty dumb. I mean sure it's convenient for both sides to let people just walk in knowing next to nothing about the election an vote based on their party, but this town voted overwhelmingly against that. This punishes people who are not interested in the election. If a city wants to run itself this way, it should be allowed to.

    Smurph on
  • Options
    mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Smurph wrote: »
    Just saying that a majority Black city electing anyone other than a Black Democrat indicates they were tricked is pretty dumb. I mean sure it's convenient for both sides to let people just walk in knowing next to nothing about the election an vote based on their party, but this town voted overwhelmingly against that. This punishes people who are not interested in the election. If a city wants to run itself this way, it should be allowed to.

    It seems to me that this hurts politicians more than citizens.

    mrdobalina on
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yes clearly I'm the one who is pushing for them to be gulled into accidentally voting for a politican who will not champion their interests.

    It is not clear to me whether you two are following the intentially-obtuse Republican playbook of puerile "racism ju-jitsu" that is convincing to no one besides white republicans and closeted racists, or whether you're just straight-up ignorant of what racism means and has meant in this country.

    Yes, because those are the only two possible options. We don't see eye to eye, so I'm stupid or a jerk. Haven't seen that in any political playbook either. :rotate:

    Racism can mean many things to many people. I'm not about to engage in a debate over 'how racist y is compared to x' but certainly you must understand that something can be a little gray in the matters of race.

    Yall on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    Would this also apply to congressional elections, or is just city-wide elections?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    Would this also apply to congressional elections, or is just city-wide elections?

    You just need to make sure that this kind of voting procedure is limited to the southern black districts.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Elki wrote: »
    Would this also apply to congressional elections, or is just city-wide elections?

    A town that size couldn't mandate changes in Congressional election methods. They're what 1/60 the size of a Congressional District?

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    SaammielSaammiel Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Would this also apply to congressional elections, or is just city-wide elections?

    You just need to make sure that this kind of voting procedure is limited to the southern black districts.

    You mean like the entire state of Nebraska? Or does that ruin your narrative?

    Saammiel on
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    From the Washington Times:
    Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

    The article goes on to say that the city is 2/3 black.

    More:
    Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor.

    Emphasis mine.

    This strikes me as not only patently absurd, but insulting on a deep level to black voters. It's a well known fact that the Republican party has not done even remotely well with black voters for some time (ever?!), and "no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here. "

    So how deep and how much effort should be spent in maintaining a strict political identity in local affairs? And why does the Justice Department feel it needs to override a local law enacted by a majority minority. In fact:
    In November's election - one in which "hope" emerged as a central theme - the city had uncommonly high voter turnout, with more than 11,000 of the city's 15,000 voters casting ballots. Kinston's blacks voted in greater numbers than whites.

    Whites typically cast the majority of votes in Kinston's general elections. Kinston residents contributed to Barack Obama's victory as America's first black president and voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city.

    The measure appeared to have broad support among both white and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city's nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-majority precincts.

    So this is a case of black residents enacting a law that they favor, only to be told that they are harmed by not knowing who is a Democrat.

    Incredulous.

    Isn't the Washington Times the mooney paper?

    *Checks Wiki*

    Yep, newspaper run by right-wing cult. Not the most unbiased of sources.

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    YallYall Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    That was an honest question. I'm questioning your definition of this as racist and saying that the majority is always able to get their candidate elected if they are a traditionally discriminated against racial minority.

    This particular case, they really should switch the elections to districts for the city council and do the time honored gerrymandering of seats to satisfy the VRA. Which is probably natural, knowing the US.

    But having been discriminated against in the past doesn't mean you will be in the present. Where does it end?

    You should only get 'your' candidate in if that person gets the most votes. It's not like there are people with clubs at polling places. It's not like the majority is being kept down here through some institutionalized illiteracy programs that necessitates a single letter breaking everything down into a symbol that says "Ok everyone, White folks click this, Black folks click this."

    If you want respresentation, you vote.

    Regarding the primaries, what is preventing participation? Eveyone is acting as though there is some unseen exclusion on some level, but I've seen no evidence in this case to imply any such thing.

    Right, when does the Voting Rights Act need to expire, and how can we tell? I suspect, based purely on last year's Presidential exit polls, that voting in the South remains largely based on race.
    Alabama:
    White 88-10 McCain
    Black 98-2 Obama

    Arkansas:
    White 68-30 McCain
    Black 95-5 Obama

    Georgia:
    White 76-23 McCain
    Black 98-2 Obama

    Louisiana:
    White 84-14 McCain
    Black 94-4

    Mississippi:
    White 88-11 McCain
    Black 98-2 Obama

    North Carolina:
    White 64-35 McCain
    Black 95-5 Obama

    South Carolina:
    White 73-26 McCain
    Black 96-4 Obama

    Tennessee:
    White 63-34 McCain
    Black 94-6 Obama

    Texas:
    White 73-26 McCain
    Black 98-2 Obama
    Hispanic (since it's Texas) 63-35 Obama

    Virginia:
    White 60-39 McCain
    Black 92-8 Obama

    Especially in the Deep South, these states aren't polarized by partisanship so much as race. Suggesting to me that the VRA is still necessary.

    Again - you put words in my mouth. When did I state or imply that the voters right's act should be abolished? Furthermore our argument (or at least mine I shouldn't presume to speak for others) has been the weak logic used in this one conclusion by this one justice is illogical and possibly racist in nature. There is no evidence of gerrymandering, issues with polling places or discrimination of any type. In fact I see no one thing in this case that is counter to the voting rights act. So please stop acting as though I've so much as suggested overturning anything.

    Yall on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Yes clearly I'm the one who is pushing for them to be gulled into accidentally voting for a politican who will not champion their interests.

    It is not clear to me whether you two are following the intentially-obtuse Republican playbook of puerile "racism ju-jitsu" that is convincing to no one besides white republicans and closeted racists, or whether you're just straight-up ignorant of what racism means and has meant in this country.

    Yes, because those are the only two possible options. We don't see eye to eye, so I'm stupid or a jerk. Haven't seen that in any political playbook either. :rotate:

    Racism can mean many things to many people. I'm not about to engage in a debate over 'how racist y is compared to x' but certainly you must understand that something can be a little gray in the matters of race.

    You are advancing the stupid idea that because southern black folks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, it's an indicator that black people are racist. You are also somehow trying to somehow pretend that it's offensive to imply that these voters in SC would benefit from more information regarding party affiliation on their ballots - even though this is true of all voters. You are holding black people in a poor SC town to a standard of civic literacy that no population group could be reasonably held to, and then ridiculously crying "racism" when anyone objects. You are trying to pretend as though the federal government has no compelling interest in monitoring the conduct of elections in the South and occasionally overturning local preference in some conduct.

    So yes of course I assume you are arguing in bad faith. The only other possible conclusion is that you are ridiculously ignorant.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    I don't think I'd care much if they kept their stupid law. But man, everything I keep reading about this just smells of "do you see who's the real racist? Not Republicans. Also, how racist are black people?" Conservatives talking about racism usually make me want to stab them in the eyes.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    So somebody clarify something for me - my reading of the DoJ's underlying rationale here is that, regardless of the stated reasons for this rule change, both the intent and the ultimate effect will be to effectively disenfranchise and marginalize black folks, and that is why they're intervening. Is this accurate?

    In related news, you know what the effects would be of completely eliminating party affiliation in this nation? It would lower voter turnout while resulting in the exact same election results. You would get rid of straight-ticket voters who completely ignore politicians and instead just get the straight-ticket voters who don't completely ignore politicians. Only instead of voting for the D or the R, they would vote for the code words that all politicians started putting out there. So all of your former Dems would now make sure that every time they spoke they included the phrase "social justice" and all former Pubs would talk about "family values". And so as to ensure that they captured the entirety of the former-straight-ticket crowd, they would probably stick more closely to the party line.

    So basically you would get unofficial parties and increased polarization. Meanwhile, people would be just as ignorant when they were voting. Unless you think the guys who believe Obama isn't a US citizen are well-informed just because they listen to crazy pundits spewing conspiracy theories all day.

    You can't force the electorate to be informed - they simply don't want to be. They like their echo chambers.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    TachTach Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    A more informed voting populace would be a good thing- help people make better decisions for themselves.

    However- 'cism

    Tach on
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    Saammiel wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Elki wrote: »
    Would this also apply to congressional elections, or is just city-wide elections?

    You just need to make sure that this kind of voting procedure is limited to the southern black districts.

    You mean like the entire state of Nebraska? Or does that ruin your narrative?

    Nebraska doesn't have South Carolina's history of polarized racial politics and society nor South Carolina's heterogeneity.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    :^:
    Welp, I'm as cool with the status-quo as the next wine-swilling bourgeoisie.
    :P

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    Bionic MonkeyBionic Monkey Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Isn't the Washington Times the mooney paper?

    *Checks Wiki*

    Yep, newspaper run by right-wing cult. Not the most unbiased of sources.

    Just checked google news, and the only sources for this story I can find at FOX News and the National Review Online.

    Anybody have a source that isn't biased as fuck?

    Bionic Monkey on
    sig_megas_armed.jpg
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Yall wrote: »
    Again - you put words in my mouth. When did I state or imply that the voters right's act should be abolished? Furthermore our argument (or at least mine I shouldn't presume to speak for others) has been the weak logic used in this one conclusion by this one justice is illogical and possibly racist in nature. There is no evidence of gerrymandering, issues with polling places or discrimination of any type. In fact I see no one thing in this case that is counter to the voting rights act. So please stop acting as though I've so much as suggested overturning anything.

    Sorry, I'm raising points that are interesting to me that happen to be vaguely related to what you're saying. Not saying you necessarily believe the opposite of what I'm saying. It's just that the conditions that required the VRA are still operable. The law is pretty rigid and errs on the side of caution, which is how we get to this here case.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator Mod Emeritus
    edited October 2009
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    It is not clear to me whether you two are following the intentially-obtuse Republican playbook of puerile "racism ju-jitsu" that is convincing to no one besides white republicans and closeted racists, or whether you're just straight-up ignorant of what racism means and has meant in this country.

    More likely I'm happy that a town is trying to move past this crap and is told, in very racist terms by the DOJ, that they aren't allowed to. You forget that this is a Democrat-run town, with a majority being black. Maybe that town is really, honestly trying to focus on themselves instead of partisanship?

    Have you ever been outside of northern California? Because it more or less sounds like you haven't.

    South Carolina is not a blank slate and the black residents of Kinston SC is not trying to throw off the shackles of power in order to give the white Republicans a sporting chance.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • Options
    SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    The thing that really confuses me about this is why this measure was voted for in the first place. Why is giving voters more information (about the party they belong to) a bad thing?

    SageinaRage on
    sig.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.