As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Republican War on Voting

1246767

Posts

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    Druk wrote:
    I believe MM was speaking of laws forcing Arizona to comply with a set of election rules. That doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't object or persuade Arizona's government/citizens otherwise.

    If that's what he meant, he shouldn't have phrased it:
    Modern Man wrote:
    My outlook is that I'm not presumptuous enough to tell people in other states what election laws they should pass. If you don't like Arizona's election laws, don't live there.

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    And even if that is what he meant, it's still pretty abhorrent. The States can only implement election laws that don't contradict the Constitution, which, even though Republicans have been frantically searching for loopholes and exact wording to circumvent the letter of the law, the spirit of the Constitution is pretty explicitly for making it as easy to be a part of the franchise as possible.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Druk wrote:
    I believe MM was speaking of laws forcing Arizona to comply with a set of election rules. That doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't object or persuade Arizona's government/citizens otherwise.
    ...

    ... ...
    Modern Man wrote:
    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.
    Same page. Have you considered actually reading the thread, Druk? You might find it helpful if you're going to attempt to contribute.

    Goalposts shifting again in 3... 2... 1...

    Thanatos on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    If you don't like the voting laws in Arizona, don't live there.

    If you don't like the discriminatory practices which are more prevalent in the southern states, don't live there.

    If you don't like the genocide going on in other countries, don't live there.

    But whatever you do, don't speak out against these terrible things -- unless you live there, and then it's okay!
    Are you really comparing Constitutional election laws to unconstitutional discrimination and genocide?

    And no one is arguing that you can't say whatever you want about Arizona's laws. I doubt people in Arizona care about your opinion any more than you care about their opinion when you vote in your state elections.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • wanderingwandering Russia state-affiliated media Registered User regular
    Hey I thought you were all in favor of suppressing people's right to vote, Thanatos. Remember when you wrote this?
    Thanatos wrote:
    I was just thinking earlier that we need some Democrat front groups with no ties to the party to start in on some voter suppression efforts of old, white people. I think they'd be really susceptible to that kind of thing, and we could focus it in on swing states and districts.

    If we can drop those returns for the 65+ set, we have a way better chance of swinging Congress and the Presidency in 2012.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    You claiming that discriminatory election laws are constitutional despite the history of the Court doesn't make them so.
    Modern Man wrote:
    And no one is arguing that you can't say whatever you want about Arizona's laws.
    Modern Man wrote:
    If the people of a state, through their elected representatives, decide to enact more restrictive election laws, that's not any of my business.
    "Well, just because I'm a sanctimonious goose about not doing so and insist that you shouldn't either doesn't mean that I'm arguing you can't!"

  • DrukDruk Registered User regular
    I read the entire thread more than once, thanks so much for asking.

    I'll agree that MM's posts are not as clear as they could be, but I still see them as an argument for federalism in election laws. In any case, he's repeatedly claimed this is how he sees things, even in the quotes you are providing. This is not the same as saying "Don't speak out!"

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    wandering wrote:
    Hey I thought you were all in favor of suppressing people's right to vote, Thanatos. Remember when you wrote this?
    Thanatos wrote:
    I was just thinking earlier that we need some Democrat front groups with no ties to the party to start in on some voter suppression efforts of old, white people. I think they'd be really susceptible to that kind of thing, and we could focus it in on swing states and districts.

    If we can drop those returns for the 65+ set, we have a way better chance of swinging Congress and the Presidency in 2012.
    I think it's a despicable strategy, and I think it should be unconstitutional.

    However, I also don't believe in bringing a whiffle bat to a gun fight.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    You claiming that discriminatory election laws are constitutional despite the history of the Court doesn't make them so.
    Modern Man wrote:
    And no one is arguing that you can't say whatever you want about Arizona's laws.
    Modern Man wrote:
    If the people of a state, through their elected representatives, decide to enact more restrictive election laws, that's not any of my business.
    "Well, just because I'm a sanctimonious goose about not doing so and insist that you shouldn't either doesn't mean that I'm arguing you can't!"
    "Shouldn't" is pretty different from "not allowed to."

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    We're only like one election away from being a distopian society run by corporations, 2 more bought and paid for justices and the Republicans can do anything they want.

    override367 on
  • DrukDruk Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    I doubt people in Arizona care about your opinion any more than you care about their opinion when you vote in your state elections.

    When you say state elections, do you mean that you consider Arizonans voting in national elections to be governed by different rules?

    Druk on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    TRIPLEPOST

    override367 on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    It's really terrifying that we really are only one election away from pretty much being a dystopian future scenario. 2 (maybe 3) of the current justices are bought and paid for, and if Obama loses it may be 5 by the 2016.

    At that point the Republicans could do literally whatever the fuck they wanted

    Wait, which of Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas aren't bought and paid for?

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    *

    override367 on
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Druk wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    I doubt people in Arizona care about your opinion any more than you care about their opinion when you vote in your state elections.

    When you say state elections, do you mean that you consider Arizonans voting in national elections to be governed by different rules?
    What I mean is that election laws are passed on the state level. So, if Arizonans don't like the election laws passed by the Arizona legislature, they can replace the legislators who enacted such laws.

    Different state election laws don't change how we elect Congress or the the President. Arizona still gets 2 Senators, however many Representatives and votes for delegates to the Electoral College just like every other state. Local election laws don't change that. And Arizona's election laws don't affect anyone outside of Arizona.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Druk wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    I doubt people in Arizona care about your opinion any more than you care about their opinion when you vote in your state elections.

    When you say state elections, do you mean that you consider Arizonans voting in national elections to be governed by different rules?
    What I mean is that election laws are passed on the state level. So, if Arizonans don't like the election laws passed by the Arizona legislature, they can replace the legislators who enacted such laws.

    Different state election laws don't change how we elect Congress or the the President. Arizona still gets 2 Senators, however many Representatives and votes for delegates to the Electoral College just like every other state. Local election laws don't change that. And Arizona's election laws don't affect anyone outside of Arizona.

    not if they're being denied the right to vote

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    ronzo wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    I understand the idea of having to suck it up when you lose elections. I live in Texas. However, I still want to HAVE ELECTIONS. If whoever won the first basketball game going to make new rules to the game and appoint new refs to make sure those rules were OK, you might as well cut out all these intermediate steps and not have the damned game.
    You'll still have elections. No one is going to take the vote away from you or any American citizen living in Texas (unless you're a felon).

    Or poor, black, elderly, Latino...
    Feel free to point out a law that takes away the vote from people based on income level, race, advanced age or ethnicity.
    Why? Honestly, will you change your opinion? Because I can't ever recall a single instance of it happening. You'll just find a way to twist around whatever we put forward as not being relevant. It's like arguing with a goddamn wall.

    We had a proposed law that limited students right to vote in the other thread that you said didn't count as Republican's intentions to restrict voting right because it didn't get passed. You just sit there and spin reality because you just want your lower fucking taxes
    I'd be opposed to any laws that ban voting on racial grounds or income levels. As would the Supreme Court, I'm sure. I'm not opposed on laws that treat everyone the same, but that might have more impact on a certain group, for whatever reason.

    Requiring ID when you vote might have a negative impact on poor people, but the rules apply the same to everyone equally so I don't have a problem with them.

    After all, you are just as restricted from marrying someone of the same gender as anyone else, right?

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    I am opposed to gay marriage, yes.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • CaedwyrCaedwyr Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    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?

    Actually, I was going for more the disenfranchiesment of jewish voters that followed the election of the national socialist party, but you are right, 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
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Druk wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    I doubt people in Arizona care about your opinion any more than you care about their opinion when you vote in your state elections.

    When you say state elections, do you mean that you consider Arizonans voting in national elections to be governed by different rules?
    What I mean is that election laws are passed on the state level. So, if Arizonans don't like the election laws passed by the Arizona legislature, they can replace the legislators who enacted such laws.

    Different state election laws don't change how we elect Congress or the the President. Arizona still gets 2 Senators, however many Representatives and votes for delegates to the Electoral College just like every other state. Local election laws don't change that. And Arizona's election laws don't affect anyone outside of Arizona.

    not if they're being denied the right to vote

    Yeah, it's kind of hard to seriously make an argument in favor of overturning a law via the voting/election process when the law in question specifically limits the chances that the votes the limiting party enacts can be overturned.

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Arizona's election laws don't affect anyone outside of Arizona ... really? If there is in fact a racial or class bias in the voting laws in Arizona, that potentially affects who Arizona elects to the House of Representatives, Senate and who their state's Electoral College representatives vote for in the Presidential election. It's not like a different set of rules on who can and cannot vote are suddenly in place for Federal elections. For this reason it is important that everybody's election laws are as fair as we can manage, because they do in fact have an impact on the entire nation.

    Of course arguing this point is likely to be fruitless, as nobody really wins arguments on the internet. Back to the pony thread with me.

    steam_sig.png
  • ArchonexArchonex No hard feelings, right? Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Modern Man wrote:
    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.

    The problem is that certain politicians in these states are abusing the systems of government we have, often without being entirely honest to their voting base (Or in other cases, as in the case of Scott Walker, just giving a big middle finger to the state, and pushing it through.) to potentially attempt to rig the electoral process in their favor through sly, hard to trace (Once the acts in question are in effect.), and underhanded means.

    If you can't see the issues that might come from restricting people from the right to vote, you're either blind, deluded, or are trolling.

    Also, just as a note, but saying this after the first post:
    Elections have consequences.

    When it's one party doing this crap, sounds suspiciously like you're actually saying:
    Elections have consequences (because the Republicans want to win at any cost).

    Just something to consider for the future.

    Archonex on
  • DrukDruk Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Different state election laws don't change how we elect Congress or the the President. Arizona still gets 2 Senators, however many Representatives and votes for delegates to the Electoral College just like every other state. Local election laws don't change that. And Arizona's election laws don't affect anyone outside of Arizona.

    Ah, I see. Statistically true, I'm sure, but I disagree. Voters should get to vote for US President by following US voting rules, not state voting rules. Representatives in the House are similar, since they are representing people more than a state. I can see your argument for Senators, possibly, even though they make national decisions, because they directly represent a state. Just use DC as an example.

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    I am opposed to gay marriage, yes.
    Just out of curiosity, and I don't want to derail the thread, but could you tell me why? PM is fine.

  • ArchonexArchonex No hard feelings, right? Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    Mind you, this isn't just a presidential or senatorial election issue.

    Overall, doing things like restricting students from voting (One of the big things a few R politicians have tried to do now.) while living on a college campus/in a college town will effect local and in state elections too, since these people won't be able to contribute to the electoral process without making a massive contribution of effort (IE: Driving back home for god knows how many miles.) to vote. Something that can't be reasonably expected to be done, especially in this economy, and with gas prices, without the invention of teleportation devices in the near future.

    Archonex on
  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    MikeMan wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    I am opposed to gay marriage, yes.
    Just out of curiosity, and I don't want to derail the thread, but could you tell me why? PM is fine.
    if i remember correctly, it was something about states rights and Judeo-Christian tradition.

    So basically the normal Republican bullshit

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Druk wrote:
    Modern Man wrote:
    Different state election laws don't change how we elect Congress or the the President. Arizona still gets 2 Senators, however many Representatives and votes for delegates to the Electoral College just like every other state. Local election laws don't change that. And Arizona's election laws don't affect anyone outside of Arizona.

    Ah, I see. Statistically true, I'm sure, but I disagree. Voters should get to vote for US President by following US voting rules, not state voting rules. Representatives in the House are similar, since they are representing people more than a state. I can see your argument for Senators, possibly, even though they make national decisions, because they directly represent a state. Just use DC as an example.
    I guess we have to distinguish voting procedures from the actual rules about how we elect Congress and the President. Arizona might require voter ID's, Massachusetts might not, but voters in both states elect Congressmen and the President in the same manner. Arizona can't decide to elect 3 Senators, for example. And every Congressional district in Arizona has to follow the same basic rules as districts in every other state. The only area that state laws can make a big difference is the Electoral College, in terms of things like winner-takes-all, proportional allocation of electors based on vote etc.

    DC's a bad example for this discussion, seeing as we don't elect voting members of Congress. We don't even have the Constitutional right to have an elected District government.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Let me tell you the only reason anyone gives for opposing gay marriage: they're a bigot.

    It's the only reason that exists. They may couch it in some sort of bullshit, but that's fundamentally the reason.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote:
    Let me tell you the only reason anyone gives for opposing gay marriage: they're a bigot.

    It's the only reason that exists. They may couch it in some sort of bullshit, but that's fundamentally the reason.

    (Shrugs) I don't have anything against gay people. I just don't think same-sex marriage qualifies as marriage, for a number of reasons.

    But I'm not going to go off on this tangent. Start another thread if you want to rehash the gay marriage argument for the nth time.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • ronzoronzo Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    "I'm not going off on this tangent, but here's how I feel about it."

    If you don't want it to go off-topic, stop giving your opinion on it

    ronzo on
  • DrukDruk Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    DC's a bad example for this discussion, seeing as we don't elect voting members of Congress.

    Oh my bad, I forgot about that for some reason. I remember watching Colbert interview the delegate a couple years ago, now.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    ronzo wrote:
    "I'm not going off on this tangent, but here's how I feel about it."

    If you don't want it to go off-topic, stop giving your opinion on it
    I mentioned it once, and Thanatos proceeded to call me a bigot. I wasn't the one continuing the tangent.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    I guess we have to distinguish voting procedures from the actual rules about how we elect Congress and the President. Arizona might require voter ID's, Massachusetts might not, but voters in both states elect Congressmen and the President in the same manner.

    No, quite clearly the would not. One is the act of apportionment with the other being the act of elections and they are two very distinct things. The Apartheid South still only sent two Senators to the Congress, but the methodology used in elections were still an attack on democracy and the principles of self government. Placing undue burdens on exercising the franchise similarly attacks the foundation of democracy and self government.

  • AbsalonAbsalon Lands of Always WinterRegistered User regular
    edited October 2011
    The constitution isn't a failsafe against republicans betraying their countrymen, because judicial appointees and interpreters of the constitution are appointed by democracy. So MM might not be as evil as the people he is defending, he is just being wilfully naive to go along with his casual bigotry.

    Anyway, if the constitution allows this kind of bullshit, fuck the constitution.

    Absalon on
  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    So you're fine with discriminatory laws being enacted, because hey, the courts will eventually strike them down. And if a corporatist Supreme Court upholds those laws, suck it, because obviously they're constitutional.
    I don't lose any sleep over them, no. If they are unconstitutional, they'll get overturned.
    Apparently it's just too much to ask that legislators not pass shitty laws. We just expect the Supreme Court to clean them all up.

    steam_sig.png
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    Absalon wrote:
    The constitution isn't a failsafe against republicans betraying their countrymen, because judicial appointees and interpreters of the constitution are appointed by democracy. So MM might not be as evil as the people he is defending, he is just being wilfully naive to go along with his casual bigotry.

    Anyway, if the constitution allows this kind of bullshit, fuck the constitution.

    It's a good thing we can amend that old tablecloth then

  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt (effective against Russian warships) Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    Elections have consequences.
    Not getting to vote anymore is not, and should never be, an acceptable consequence.

    Especially if you voted for 'the other guy.'

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    It's honestly kind of amazing that anybody is willing to stand up and admit that 1) the republican party is pretty clearing and systematically adopting policies that make it more difficult for groups that tend to oppose them to vote and 2) argue at the same time that this is a natural and correct outcome in the democratic process.

    One wonders how far they'd actually have to go before "elections have consequences" ceases to be a pat defense. Bringing back the poll tax or something?

    NREqxl5.jpg
    it was the smallest on the list but
    Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User regular
    It's honestly kind of amazing that anybody is willing to stand up and admit that 1) the republican party is pretty clearing and systematically adopting policies that make it more difficult for groups that tend to oppose them to vote and 2) argue at the same time that this is a natural and correct outcome in the democratic process.

    One wonders how far they'd actually have to go before "elections have consequences" ceases to be a pat defense. Bringing back the poll tax or something?

    You forget the only way it's a poll tax is if the supreme court says it is. Good luck.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Modern Man wrote:
    But whatever you do, don't speak out against these terrible things -- unless you live there, and then it's okay!
    Are you really comparing Constitutional election laws to unconstitutional discrimination?[/quote]

    That was constitutional once too
    Modern Man wrote:
    Different state election laws don't change how we elect Congress or the the President.
    Yes, they do. Because different state election laws change WHO gets to elect congress and the President. Its almost as if who gets to vote is part of the method of voting.

    wbBv3fj.png
Sign In or Register to comment.