I saw a proposal that the first should be the highest turnout percentage in the previous election, which isn't the worst idea I'd ever heard.
do both!
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
+1
Options
OrcaAlso known as EspressosaurusWrexRegistered Userregular
Superdelegates are undemocratic, but serve an important role in gatekeeping outsiders out. That can be bad when it’s a good candidate, but it can be good when it’s a Trumpian, wannabe autocrat. After the last 6 years, I am no longer as eager to remove all gatekeeping from political parties.
This got me curious, so I went and looked. Top 5 (averaging Presidential and Congressional turnout):
1. Maine
2. Wisconsin
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Minnesota
....which isn't a whole lot better than what we've got right now, and completely avoids the South (gee, I wonder why). It'd create an incentive for the southern states to up their turnout (although with the powers that be, that'd probably be by more aggressively purging voter rolls ), and the role of first wouldn't be set in stone the way it is now, but the idea is still not ideal.
Superdelegates are undemocratic, but serve an important role in gatekeeping outsiders out. That can be bad when it’s a good candidate, but it can be good when it’s a Trumpian, wannabe autocrat. After the last 6 years, I am no longer as eager to remove all gatekeeping from political parties.
All the last six years proved was that those fuse breakers don't work and were merely set dressing to keep the more conservative (in the anti-populous sense) parts of the mob placated.
The primaries should be a nationwide reality show format affair, where the worst candidates are voted out every week until we pick a winner. Screw any format that favors one state over another.
This got me curious, so I went and looked. Top 5 (averaging Presidential and Congressional turnout):
1. Maine
2. Wisconsin
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Minnesota
....which isn't a whole lot better than what we've got right now, and completely avoids the South (gee, I wonder why). It'd create an incentive for the southern states to up their turnout (although with the powers that be, that'd probably be by more aggressively purging voter rolls ), and the role of first wouldn't be set in stone the way it is now, but the idea is still not ideal.
Yeah given that primaries are set by the parties (if not ceded to individual state parties), I can't see how determining anything for the Democratic party based on the Republicans ratfucking the vote could ever turn out well
Superdelegates are undemocratic, but serve an important role in gatekeeping outsiders out. That can be bad when it’s a good candidate, but it can be good when it’s a Trumpian, wannabe autocrat. After the last 6 years, I am no longer as eager to remove all gatekeeping from political parties.
They will never act to serve that role because to do so would be political suicide. Like the Queen technically being able to prevent Brexit. All they do is exist, and their existence is a rhetorical cudgel against Democrats.
+10
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Superdelegates are undemocratic, but serve an important role in gatekeeping outsiders out. That can be bad when it’s a good candidate, but it can be good when it’s a Trumpian, wannabe autocrat. After the last 6 years, I am no longer as eager to remove all gatekeeping from political parties.
They will never act to serve that role because to do so would be political suicide. Like the Queen technically being able to prevent Brexit. All they do is exist, and their existence is a rhetorical cudgel against Democrats.
They would never do it in a blowout, but let's say someone who has some dangerous ideology is sitting at 1900 delegates, and someone who is way less over the rail is sitting at 1850. That's a good time for 140 super delegates to put someone in.
It's never going to happen when one person has a thousand more presumptive delegates. And hopefully we don't put in someone with a dangerous ideology who can run away with the delegate count.
Still wouldn't happen. The explicit purpose of the Electoral College itself, its entire reason for being, was to prevent a Trump situation. They did not. What makes these gatekeepers any different.
Madican on
+33
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Still wouldn't happen. The explicit purpose of the Electoral College itself, its entire reason for being, was to prevent a Trump situation. They did not. What makes these gatekeepers any different.
The electorates are chosen by the party. It's a prestige position. My grandpa was one for Ronald Reagan (racist grandpa). Super Delegates are already movers and shakers in the party, and I don't think they'd act without some cover, but it's an interesting option, and one I'm not necessarily against. Although I don't know at what point the party would reject a candidate.
Superdelegates are undemocratic, but serve an important role in gatekeeping outsiders out. That can be bad when it’s a good candidate, but it can be good when it’s a Trumpian, wannabe autocrat. After the last 6 years, I am no longer as eager to remove all gatekeeping from political parties.
They will never act to serve that role because to do so would be political suicide. Like the Queen technically being able to prevent Brexit. All they do is exist, and their existence is a rhetorical cudgel against Democrats.
They would never do it in a blowout, but let's say someone who has some dangerous ideology is sitting at 1900 delegates, and someone who is way less over the rail is sitting at 1850. That's a good time for 140 super delegates to put someone in.
Then we get a horrifying combination of 1968 and 1824, along with a non-stop broadside of a stolen nomination casting a shadow on them going into the General while dispiriting half the base.
Superdelegates are undemocratic, but serve an important role in gatekeeping outsiders out. That can be bad when it’s a good candidate, but it can be good when it’s a Trumpian, wannabe autocrat. After the last 6 years, I am no longer as eager to remove all gatekeeping from political parties.
All the last six years proved was that those fuse breakers don't work and were merely set dressing to keep the more conservative (in the anti-populous sense) parts of the mob placated.
The problem is that the shifting expectations of the public on how the political system should work mean that said gatekeepers can't act. They weren't supposed to be set-dressing, just like with the electoral college, but it became politically untenable for them to actually do their job given the public's expectations.
Can those of us who aren't history buffs get some context on what happened in 1864, 1968, and 1877 re: internal party politics?
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited February 2020
1877 was the Tilden agreement in which Rutherford Hayes removed Federal Troops from the South so he could be president. Thus began Jim Crow, ended reconstruction, and was the first of many knives in the backs of African Americans. (All the other knives previously had been in the front)
1968 is a legendarily fucked up Dem primary because Bobby Kennedy was shot; back then the candidate was chosen in those oft-cited smoke filled rooms, and the party went from a candidate advocating the end of the Vietnam conflict to one expanding it. There were riots and protests, and basically it was so bad that Nixon, who everyone knew was slime, won the presidency.
Can those of us who aren't history buffs get some context on what happened in 1864, 1968, and 1877 re: internal party politics?
In 1864 the anti-war radical republicans within the party revolted against lincoln and he had to pick up the War Dems to get the nomination making Johnson the VP.
In 1968 after LBJ dropped out the Vice President won the nomination without competing in any primaries (like fencing said, this was largely because of the death of bobby kennedy)
In 1877 the Democrats won the popular vote but the electoral college agreed to make Hayes the president in exchange for the union army no longer occupying the former confederate states.
These all had long reaching and complicated results.
Can those of us who aren't history buffs get some context on what happened in 1864, 1968, and 1877 re: internal party politics?
In 1864 the anti-war radical republicans within the party revolted against lincoln and he had to pick up the War Dems to get the nomination making Johnson the VP.
In 1968 after LBJ dropped out the Vice President won the nomination without competing in any primaries
In 1877 the Democrats won the popular vote but the electoral college agreed to make Hayes the president in exchange for the union army no longer occupying the former confederate states.
These all had long reaching and complicated results.
But, just to pick 1968, cause it's the most relevant to current context, it's actually way more complicated then this. That convention usually gets read off like that, but there's a TON of very important context that kind of summary leaves out.
LBJ dropped out super late and so his replacement literally couldn't get on the ballot in most of these places.
Winning primaries didn't really matter back then anyway. It was actually a negative to be running in primaries in some ways and usually you did it more to prove a point then anything. Plus Favoured Sons would usually be dominating a lot of them anyway. The basic point being that there were not really the expectations you might have now about the situation from anyway. It's a real "the past is a foreign country" situation.
And the main fault-line was the vietnam war more then the primary system itself. And it's not like the LBJ replacements were unpopular within the party. Just with certain very vocal parts of the party.
Then you get Mayor Daley, himself a major party member involved in the convention, and the Chicago PD beating the shit out of protestors in the streets and, probably most importantly of all, this is all live on television in a way that wasn't normal at the time. One of the biggest shifts in the american political system was the changes in mass media over the course of the last century and a bit.
1968 is a giant clusterfuck of a lot of things. But it's a mistake to read it as "the party picked someone the base didn't like and so it all went to hell".
I would argue "the party knows best" has always been a terrible move.
I'm looking at you 1877
It's not had a meaningfully worse a track record then primary voters I'd say. And when it actually functions it's one of the basic guardrails against ideological dangers to the system, like fascism. One of the basic ways you end up in bad situations is when the party decides to make allies with specific groups in order to expand their own power, at the expense of long term control of the party itself.
The chaos of the '68 convention and Grant Park caused enduring problems to Humphrey that led to Nixon's landslide. And, like you said, that was without half the party being able to legitimately claim they got stabbed in the back. Which would make any use of Superdelegates to overturn a plurality winner seem tame, to my mind.
Much like in 1824 when Congress voted to give the Presidency to John Quincy Adams, despite Andrew Jackson having the most Electoral Votes. His supporters were aggrieved and came out in force in 1828. So 'keeping an autocrat out' is only true if you look at that sole election and ignore what is going to happen next.
There is no way that Superdelegates can use their power that doesn't cause more harm than their abolition. Abolishing them will also have the benefit of eliminating the rhetorical cudgel that accurately describes their anti-democratic nature.
The chaos of the '68 convention and Grant Park caused enduring problems to Humphrey that led to Nixon's landslide. And, like you said, that was without half the party being able to legitimately claim they got stabbed in the back. Which would make any use of Superdelegates to overturn a plurality winner seem tame, to my mind.
Much like in 1824 when Congress voted to give the Presidency to John Quincy Adams, despite Andrew Jackson having the most Electoral Votes. His supporters were aggrieved and came out in force in 1828. So 'keeping an autocrat out' is only true if you look at that sole election and ignore what is going to happen next.
There is no way that Superdelegates can use their power that doesn't cause more harm than their abolition. Abolishing them will also have the benefit of eliminating the rhetorical cudgel that accurately describes their anti-democratic nature.
This is correct. If Bernie goes into the convention with a reasonable plurality I can’t imagine any reality where he doesn’t get the nom and the Dems win the Presidency.
Hell, I’m still a little pissed at Bernie for publicly suggesting that the Superdelegates switch to him back after he was mathematically eliminated in 2016, but I’d be even more pissed if the convention just up and handed the Nom to my preferred candidate over him if he’s the obvious winner.
It’s looking like Bernie will have a majority anyway, particularly if the rest of the field stays in a subdivides the not-Bernie vote, so all the brokered convention talk may be moot.
This is correct. If Bernie goes into the convention with a reasonable plurality I can’t imagine any reality where he doesn’t get the nom and the Dems win the Presidency.
Sadly, I can.
The first seems likely. The second is entirely dependent on how much fuckery there is.
This is correct. If Bernie goes into the convention with a reasonable plurality I can’t imagine any reality where he doesn’t get the nom and the Dems win the Presidency.
Sadly, I can.
The first seems likely. The second is entirely dependent on how much fuckery there is.
Well getting the other candidate’s delegates after round one needs to involve some compromise, which Bernie... doesn’t really do, but if he has 40 or 45% of what he needs going in he’ll definitely be able to peel off enough to get to 51 to avoid a Buttigieg or Biden nomination.
If he has 35 or 30 he may have a plurality but it’s far from an unassailable position or a mandate no matter how spread out the remaining delegates are and saying that he deserves it or it’s a betrayal for the other 65% of the party to pick someone else would be insane.
But given his increasingly dominant numbers I don’t see him finishing on the low end of plurality. Particularly as the human desire to be on the winning team starts to grow stronger as the primaries continue.
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited February 2020
What would everybody think to states voting in reverse order of delegate count? Smallest states go first, biggest last. Sure, you got your early lead in the first five states, but the next state to vote could tie it right back up again?
No one feels their vote doesn't count, and if you want to vote earlier then it will cost you deligates.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
There’s a question of if low delegate states should have so much influence in choosing the nominee, especially if they’re not representative of the electorate
I like the idea of factoring how representative and/or how critical to winning the EC a state is into establishing the order
This is correct. If Bernie goes into the convention with a reasonable plurality I can’t imagine any reality where he doesn’t get the nom and the Dems win the Presidency.
Sadly, I can.
The first seems likely. The second is entirely dependent on how much fuckery there is.
Well getting the other candidate’s delegates after round one needs to involve some compromise, which Bernie... doesn’t really do, but if he has 40 or 45% of what he needs going in he’ll definitely be able to peel off enough to get to 51 to avoid a Buttigieg or Biden nomination.
If he has 35 or 30 he may have a plurality but it’s far from an unassailable position or a mandate no matter how spread out the remaining delegates are and saying that he deserves it or it’s a betrayal for the other 65% of the party to pick someone else would be insane.
But given his increasingly dominant numbers I don’t see him finishing on the low end of plurality. Particularly as the human desire to be on the winning team starts to grow stronger as the primaries continue.
I think you misunderstood what kind of fuckery I'm talking about. *waves around at thread*
There’s a question of if low delegate states should have so much influence in choosing the nominee, especially if they’re not representative of the electorate
I like the idea of factoring how representative and/or how critical to winning the EC a state is into establishing the order
Part of that influence is due to a voracious and often irresponsible media narrative.
That, with literally just a fraction over 1/40th of the delegates assigned, anyone specific could be considered a frontrunner, is a self perpetuating cycle.
Performance > media narrative > funding > performance > media narrative > etc. Often with the media narrative aspect being particularly capricious.
But that's the world we live in now.
+15
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Statistical sampling is a thing, and 1/40th of a group is enough to start drawing some conclusions from albeit with relatively weak accuracy. It doesn't mean anything is decided. Admittedly I hate the idea that early sampling can in and of itself alter the results of an election and wish we had broader block voting as some posters have suggested elsewhere in the thread.
But it doesn't mean we can just toss the results of the primary out the window. These races are heavily nationalized and while opinions do differ across states, they drift by percentage points, not pluralities. This means we can draw a measure of confidence in the results of these extant results without being really certain.
To sate the physics geek in me, in some ways we get to watch the political waveform collapse in real time.
Statistical sampling works if the sampled group is randomly pulled from a representative group. But states are not homogeneous and so taking the polling from early states as representative of later would be a mistake.
Either way the problem is probably intractable at this point. Running an election is expensive and is generally done on the states dime. Which means that the states legislature gets to decide when it happens. Which means there are all sorts of problems of enforcing an order let alone one that isnt fixed
+5
Options
MeeqeLord of the pants most fancySomeplace amazingRegistered Userregular
Oh I think the confidence intervals for this stuff is likely to be just lousy, don't get me wrong! It'd be a hard mistake to say that this thing is in any way sewn up, but while the data isn't much, it isn't nothing either.
More trying to remark on the general fun of watching the relationship between polling data and reality turning into history during elections. While where we are at in the political life of our nation is deplorable, but I have to say getting to watch modern polling and data analysts trying to make sense of what's going on is fascinating, both when they are right and when they're wrong.
No. Confidence intervals are only valid if the data can be reasonably said to be representative (and a random sample from a representative group is). They do not get bigger or smaler in the presence of bias; they get useless.
No. Confidence intervals are only valid if the data can be reasonably said to be representative (and a random sample from a representative group is). They do not get bigger or smaler in the presence of bias; they get useless.
For example, a survey of monolingual English speakers is not useful to evaluate how monolingual French speakers use the word "échantillon", no matter the sample size.
Summary:
The Michigan GOP passed a bunch of laws making it harder to vote, illegal to carpool to polling places, illegal to help people get their ballots or turn in their ballots etc.
A Dem PAC is suing because fuck that noise.
And now:
The RNC and Michigan Republican Party filed a motion to intervene Wednesday night in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division to join a lawsuit as defendants against Priorities USA.
It’s being both-sidesed as “Making it easier to vote” vs “Preventing Voter Fraud”
Now, there’s no evidence of fraud, and no proof that these measures would prevent said hypothetical fraud, but that doesn’t seem to come up very much.
No carpooling? Uh, doesn't that just become a flagrant poll tax of 'either you can walk to your polling station or hope you have a car and can afford gas/parking', depending on the city layout? (yes I'm flagrantly overlooking mass transit, as that seems to vary wildly in the US, and be basically non-existent in some areas).
I know the GOP love them some creative poll taxes, but at least at a headline level, that seems like a stretch. (yeah yeah, they're emboldened and want Democracy/Democrats to burn, etc, etc, I'm aware of the usual hot takes)
I'm also aware that it doesn't have to work permanently, just long enough to screw with the election or at least to put fear/uncertainty into people leading up to it, which is why the judicial system should come down on this bullshit like a ton of bricks (usual caveats about red states, Trump judiciary stacking, etc, etc).
It is becoming exhausting to post about this without also putting down a laundry list why your system of government is fuuuucked.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Posts
do both!
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
1. Maine
2. Wisconsin
3. Colorado
4. New Hampshire
5. Minnesota
....which isn't a whole lot better than what we've got right now, and completely avoids the South (gee, I wonder why). It'd create an incentive for the southern states to up their turnout (although with the powers that be, that'd probably be by more aggressively purging voter rolls
All the last six years proved was that those fuse breakers don't work and were merely set dressing to keep the more conservative (in the anti-populous sense) parts of the mob placated.
Yeah given that primaries are set by the parties (if not ceded to individual state parties), I can't see how determining anything for the Democratic party based on the Republicans ratfucking the vote could ever turn out well
They will never act to serve that role because to do so would be political suicide. Like the Queen technically being able to prevent Brexit. All they do is exist, and their existence is a rhetorical cudgel against Democrats.
It's never going to happen when one person has a thousand more presumptive delegates. And hopefully we don't put in someone with a dangerous ideology who can run away with the delegate count.
Then we get a horrifying combination of 1968 and 1824, along with a non-stop broadside of a stolen nomination casting a shadow on them going into the General while dispiriting half the base.
Which... isn't good
Fuck, I'd stay home. What would be the point.
(I'd still vote down ticket / local)
Which would still be better than putting an autocrat in power.
1968 resulted in Nixon.
1824 catalysed Jackson in 1828.
I'm looking at you 1877
The problem is that the shifting expectations of the public on how the political system should work mean that said gatekeepers can't act. They weren't supposed to be set-dressing, just like with the electoral college, but it became politically untenable for them to actually do their job given the public's expectations.
1968 is a legendarily fucked up Dem primary because Bobby Kennedy was shot; back then the candidate was chosen in those oft-cited smoke filled rooms, and the party went from a candidate advocating the end of the Vietnam conflict to one expanding it. There were riots and protests, and basically it was so bad that Nixon, who everyone knew was slime, won the presidency.
In 1864 the anti-war radical republicans within the party revolted against lincoln and he had to pick up the War Dems to get the nomination making Johnson the VP.
In 1968 after LBJ dropped out the Vice President won the nomination without competing in any primaries (like fencing said, this was largely because of the death of bobby kennedy)
In 1877 the Democrats won the popular vote but the electoral college agreed to make Hayes the president in exchange for the union army no longer occupying the former confederate states.
These all had long reaching and complicated results.
But, just to pick 1968, cause it's the most relevant to current context, it's actually way more complicated then this. That convention usually gets read off like that, but there's a TON of very important context that kind of summary leaves out.
LBJ dropped out super late and so his replacement literally couldn't get on the ballot in most of these places.
Winning primaries didn't really matter back then anyway. It was actually a negative to be running in primaries in some ways and usually you did it more to prove a point then anything. Plus Favoured Sons would usually be dominating a lot of them anyway. The basic point being that there were not really the expectations you might have now about the situation from anyway. It's a real "the past is a foreign country" situation.
And the main fault-line was the vietnam war more then the primary system itself. And it's not like the LBJ replacements were unpopular within the party. Just with certain very vocal parts of the party.
Then you get Mayor Daley, himself a major party member involved in the convention, and the Chicago PD beating the shit out of protestors in the streets and, probably most importantly of all, this is all live on television in a way that wasn't normal at the time. One of the biggest shifts in the american political system was the changes in mass media over the course of the last century and a bit.
1968 is a giant clusterfuck of a lot of things. But it's a mistake to read it as "the party picked someone the base didn't like and so it all went to hell".
It's not had a meaningfully worse a track record then primary voters I'd say. And when it actually functions it's one of the basic guardrails against ideological dangers to the system, like fascism. One of the basic ways you end up in bad situations is when the party decides to make allies with specific groups in order to expand their own power, at the expense of long term control of the party itself.
Much like in 1824 when Congress voted to give the Presidency to John Quincy Adams, despite Andrew Jackson having the most Electoral Votes. His supporters were aggrieved and came out in force in 1828. So 'keeping an autocrat out' is only true if you look at that sole election and ignore what is going to happen next.
There is no way that Superdelegates can use their power that doesn't cause more harm than their abolition. Abolishing them will also have the benefit of eliminating the rhetorical cudgel that accurately describes their anti-democratic nature.
This is correct. If Bernie goes into the convention with a reasonable plurality I can’t imagine any reality where he doesn’t get the nom and the Dems win the Presidency.
Hell, I’m still a little pissed at Bernie for publicly suggesting that the Superdelegates switch to him back after he was mathematically eliminated in 2016, but I’d be even more pissed if the convention just up and handed the Nom to my preferred candidate over him if he’s the obvious winner.
It’s looking like Bernie will have a majority anyway, particularly if the rest of the field stays in a subdivides the not-Bernie vote, so all the brokered convention talk may be moot.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Sadly, I can.
The first seems likely. The second is entirely dependent on how much fuckery there is.
Well getting the other candidate’s delegates after round one needs to involve some compromise, which Bernie... doesn’t really do, but if he has 40 or 45% of what he needs going in he’ll definitely be able to peel off enough to get to 51 to avoid a Buttigieg or Biden nomination.
If he has 35 or 30 he may have a plurality but it’s far from an unassailable position or a mandate no matter how spread out the remaining delegates are and saying that he deserves it or it’s a betrayal for the other 65% of the party to pick someone else would be insane.
But given his increasingly dominant numbers I don’t see him finishing on the low end of plurality. Particularly as the human desire to be on the winning team starts to grow stronger as the primaries continue.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
No one feels their vote doesn't count, and if you want to vote earlier then it will cost you deligates.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I like the idea of factoring how representative and/or how critical to winning the EC a state is into establishing the order
I think you misunderstood what kind of fuckery I'm talking about. *waves around at thread*
Part of that influence is due to a voracious and often irresponsible media narrative.
That, with literally just a fraction over 1/40th of the delegates assigned, anyone specific could be considered a frontrunner, is a self perpetuating cycle.
Performance > media narrative > funding > performance > media narrative > etc. Often with the media narrative aspect being particularly capricious.
But that's the world we live in now.
But it doesn't mean we can just toss the results of the primary out the window. These races are heavily nationalized and while opinions do differ across states, they drift by percentage points, not pluralities. This means we can draw a measure of confidence in the results of these extant results without being really certain.
To sate the physics geek in me, in some ways we get to watch the political waveform collapse in real time.
Either way the problem is probably intractable at this point. Running an election is expensive and is generally done on the states dime. Which means that the states legislature gets to decide when it happens. Which means there are all sorts of problems of enforcing an order let alone one that isnt fixed
More trying to remark on the general fun of watching the relationship between polling data and reality turning into history during elections. While where we are at in the political life of our nation is deplorable, but I have to say getting to watch modern polling and data analysts trying to make sense of what's going on is fascinating, both when they are right and when they're wrong.
For example, a survey of monolingual English speakers is not useful to evaluate how monolingual French speakers use the word "échantillon", no matter the sample size.
https://www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/02/20/michigan-voting-lawsuits-rnc-trump-116142
Summary:
The Michigan GOP passed a bunch of laws making it harder to vote, illegal to carpool to polling places, illegal to help people get their ballots or turn in their ballots etc.
A Dem PAC is suing because fuck that noise.
And now:
It’s being both-sidesed as “Making it easier to vote” vs “Preventing Voter Fraud”
Now, there’s no evidence of fraud, and no proof that these measures would prevent said hypothetical fraud, but that doesn’t seem to come up very much.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
They don't want no scrubs. Hanging out the passenger side of their best friend's ride, trying to vote for a democracy
I know the GOP love them some creative poll taxes, but at least at a headline level, that seems like a stretch. (yeah yeah, they're emboldened and want Democracy/Democrats to burn, etc, etc, I'm aware of the usual hot takes)
I'm also aware that it doesn't have to work permanently, just long enough to screw with the election or at least to put fear/uncertainty into people leading up to it, which is why the judicial system should come down on this bullshit like a ton of bricks (usual caveats about red states, Trump judiciary stacking, etc, etc).
It is becoming exhausting to post about this without also putting down a laundry list why your system of government is fuuuucked.