It’s be great to get a discount on some shopping on voting holiday if you can present your “I Voted” sticker.
Just trying to think of ways to make the idea work for more people. Really should just do mandatory registering and mail-in ballots.
That would just mean more clerk's and other support staff having to work during the holiday to honor it, which sort of negates the point of making it a holiday.
MWO: Adamski
+10
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah, Election Day as a holiday means nothing.
+5
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Election Day as a holiday is a good way to encourage voting by making it a tradition and officially celebrating it.
Doesn’t the Dem bill include other voting rights stuff? Are we only talking about this one because Mitch McConnell wants us to?
It’s be great to get a discount on some shopping on voting holiday if you can present your “I Voted” sticker.
Just trying to think of ways to make the idea work for more people. Really should just do mandatory registering and mail-in ballots.
The only problem with that is how it opens up all sorts of goosery. Again, no surprise that the GOP is behind denying these things and being utterly pedantic about when and which ones should be counted.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
McConnell knows he can't win in a fair fight, so he's doing everything he can to make it unfair.
One thing that worries me with the pushback on HR 1 is the freedom of speech framing being used, because unfortunately, we Americans tend to be really stupid about it
I mean it’s not really harmful. We should give gov workers a bunch more paid days off after what the GOP did to them....again....and are threatening to do...again
But this is a teeeny part of the reforms, but is one that can be easily spun by Mitch to distract the GOP base from all the other shit that’s in there that they would like.
I'm just not entirely sure that election day as a holiday won't have the opposite effect that we're after. Goal is to make it easier for the poor have easier access to the polls. Granted, I'd be fine going with it, if we had reasonable early voting time frames. That way if the individual in poverty still doesn't get time off to vote because of their asshole boss, despite election day being a holiday. The early voting would still give them more chances to cast a ballot.
I'm just not entirely sure that election day as a holiday won't have the opposite effect that we're after. Goal is to make it easier for the poor have easier access to the polls. Granted, I'd be fine going with it, if we had reasonable early voting time frames. That way if the individual in poverty still doesn't get time off to vote because of their asshole boss, despite election day being a holiday. The early voting would still give them more chances to cast a ballot.
I'm just not entirely sure that election day as a holiday won't have the opposite effect that we're after. Goal is to make it easier for the poor have easier access to the polls. Granted, I'd be fine going with it, if we had reasonable early voting time frames. That way if the individual in poverty still doesn't get time off to vote because of their asshole boss, despite election day being a holiday. The early voting would still give them more chances to cast a ballot.
These things aren't mutually exclusive!
Yeah, IMO they should be paired up. At least some will get some more much needed time off and that might cause enough of lull leading up to the election that some do find time off to do shit.
I haven't looked at the bill yet, but there needs to be more discussion about how some of the issues with voting are an extension of economic inequality. Even though I have a ton of complaints about my current job, my financial outlook isn't so bad that I can't find time to vote. The fact that a federal holiday won't help some find time to vote, shows that we have an issue where some literally have to work every available hour they have to get by and what little free time they do get, they might feel better using either to rest or spend time with family.
I'm still trying to figure out how much of that is a result of intentional shittiness, geared towards voter suppression, on the part of some wealthy individuals and how much of it is just some wealthy assholes being super callous and greedy, while not giving a shit on the wider impact of their shitty behavior.
Like Mitch is making us talk about a new federal holiday instead of expanded early voting and increased poll locations
No, he isn't. People are posting things of their own free will.
Fortunately New York and Michigan have improved their voting laws for the next election. Illinois is already pretty good. The main complaint I have is that the municipal election is next month rather than combined with the general.
Like Mitch is making us talk about a new federal holiday instead of expanded early voting and increased poll locations
No, he isn't. People are posting things of their own free will.
Fortunately New York and Michigan have improved their voting laws for the next election. Illinois is already pretty good. The main complaint I have is that the municipal election is next month rather than combined with the general.
Sorry my post was antagonistic to the folks here.
My irritation is all the stories focusing on the federal holiday part and Mitch’s description of poll workers as federal worker-leeches getting a week of vacation “hanging around the polls watching you vote,” and failing to mention any other god damned part of the bill
Yeah, focusing on the federal holiday aspect is absolutely falling into McConnell's narrative. It's just a part of the election section of the bill, and there's two more sections dealing with campaign finance and ethics. I'm looking at a summary and this is some good stuff:
Campaign finance stuff includes public funding elections with small donations (government would match 6-to-1 on small donations), killing Citizens United and reigning in Super PACs.
Ethics stuff includes tax returns for Pres and VP, preventing tax payer money being used to settle sexual harrassment suits and giving the Office of Government Ehtics some real teeth to tackle lobbyist activity.
Voting stuff includes auto registration with opt out, colleges and universities to be registration locations (not just DMVs), beefing up election security and addressing partisan gerrymandering.
And there's some other stuff in there, but I just wrote the stuff that got my attention.
Obviously, it all really boils down to how it's actually written to see if it's good or will make a difference, but I like what I'm seeing. And I like that the Dems are pushing for a lot of this stuff.
This feels like an easy fix for Democrats. Mitch tries to make the focus on the Federal holday stuff, the dems can get rid of it pretty easily and push the narrative to Mitch being obstinate.
Not that it will help much to chang Mitch's mind, but it'll keep up Dem anger/enthusiam IMO.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Like Mitch is making us talk about a new federal holiday instead of expanded early voting and increased poll locations
No, he isn't. People are posting things of their own free will.
Fortunately New York and Michigan have improved their voting laws for the next election. Illinois is already pretty good. The main complaint I have is that the municipal election is next month rather than combined with the general.
Sorry my post was antagonistic to the folks here.
My irritation is all the stories focusing on the federal holiday part and Mitch’s description of poll workers as federal worker-leeches getting a week of vacation “hanging around the polls watching you vote,” and failing to mention any other god damned part of the bill
The media is complicit in helping the GOP sharp-elbow bills to death.
If it wasn't the Federal Holiday it'd be something else. Complaining it's given them ammunition or the news orgs are stuck on it is missing the forest for the trees. Since at least the Clinton impeachment hearings, it's been the GOP agenda to obfuscate issues and focus on ridiculous shit, strawman/slippery slope/red herring the shit out of it and poison an entire set of regulations.
We were never going to get a fair bit of media coverage or opposition debate on this bill.
This feels like an easy fix for Democrats. Mitch tries to make the focus on the Federal holday stuff, the dems can get rid of it pretty easily and push the narrative to Mitch being obstinate.
Not that it will help much to chang Mitch's mind, but it'll keep up Dem anger/enthusiam IMO.
Again, he has attacked the entire bill - as I posted above, he wrote a screed in the WaPo op-ed pages that was short on facts, but long on invective. And as I said, the most problematic attack from my perspective isn't the holiday one, but the invocation of "freedom of speech" to attack the anti-dark money provisions, because we Americans tend to get very stupid when people start making those sorts of claims.
This feels like an easy fix for Democrats. Mitch tries to make the focus on the Federal holday stuff, the dems can get rid of it pretty easily and push the narrative to Mitch being obstinate.
Not that it will help much to chang Mitch's mind, but it'll keep up Dem anger/enthusiam IMO.
Again, he has attacked the entire bill - as I posted above, he wrote a screed in the WaPo op-ed pages that was short on facts, but long on invective. And as I said, the most problematic attack from my perspective isn't the holiday one, but the invocation of "freedom of speech" to attack the anti-dark money provisions, because we Americans tend to get very stupid when people start making those sorts of claims.
I don't think the freedom of speech angle will get much traction, outside of the usual suspects of course. Transparency and accountability are pretty popular concepts for most people, and that's what those sections of the bill are actually pushing. Come up with some spiffy rhetoric along the lines of 'It's not about removing dark money from politics, it's about bringing dark money into the light.' The freedom of speech argument didn't make Citizens United a popular decision, I don't see it doing much damage to HR1 where it has even less applicability.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
This feels like an easy fix for Democrats. Mitch tries to make the focus on the Federal holday stuff, the dems can get rid of it pretty easily and push the narrative to Mitch being obstinate.
Not that it will help much to chang Mitch's mind, but it'll keep up Dem anger/enthusiam IMO.
Again, he has attacked the entire bill - as I posted above, he wrote a screed in the WaPo op-ed pages that was short on facts, but long on invective. And as I said, the most problematic attack from my perspective isn't the holiday one, but the invocation of "freedom of speech" to attack the anti-dark money provisions, because we Americans tend to get very stupid when people start making those sorts of claims.
I don't think the freedom of speech angle will get much traction, outside of the usual suspects of course. Transparency and accountability are pretty popular concepts for most people, and that's what those sections of the bill are actually pushing. Come up with some spiffy rhetoric along the lines of 'It's not about removing dark money from politics, it's about bringing dark money into the light.' The freedom of speech argument didn't make Citizens United a popular decision, I don't see it doing much damage to HR1 where it has even less applicability.
It's not about making a decision more "popular", it's about short circuiting critical thinking. We Americans aren't really good at actually discussing freedom of speech, for a number of reasons, and asserting it too often has people stop thinking about a policy critically.
This feels like an easy fix for Democrats. Mitch tries to make the focus on the Federal holday stuff, the dems can get rid of it pretty easily and push the narrative to Mitch being obstinate.
Not that it will help much to chang Mitch's mind, but it'll keep up Dem anger/enthusiam IMO.
Again, he has attacked the entire bill - as I posted above, he wrote a screed in the WaPo op-ed pages that was short on facts, but long on invective. And as I said, the most problematic attack from my perspective isn't the holiday one, but the invocation of "freedom of speech" to attack the anti-dark money provisions, because we Americans tend to get very stupid when people start making those sorts of claims.
I don't think the freedom of speech angle will get much traction, outside of the usual suspects of course. Transparency and accountability are pretty popular concepts for most people, and that's what those sections of the bill are actually pushing. Come up with some spiffy rhetoric along the lines of 'It's not about removing dark money from politics, it's about bringing dark money into the light.' The freedom of speech argument didn't make Citizens United a popular decision, I don't see it doing much damage to HR1 where it has even less applicability.
It's not about making a decision more "popular", it's about short circuiting critical thinking. We Americans aren't really good at actually discussing freedom of speech, for a number of reasons, and asserting it too often has people stop thinking about a policy critically.
I think the freedom of speech angle is so unrelated to the bill that bringing it up won't change any minds. The New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) tried that line with labeling calories on menus and got laughed at. Citizens United screamed freedom of speech and only really convinced the SCOTUS, not that the guys who made that decision needed much convincing. Freedom of speech as an argument shuts down debate only as far as people are willing to accept that freedom of speech is really in play. Since this bill doesn't limit speech, only anonymity, I don't see McConnell's blather moving the needle.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
This feels like an easy fix for Democrats. Mitch tries to make the focus on the Federal holday stuff, the dems can get rid of it pretty easily and push the narrative to Mitch being obstinate.
Not that it will help much to chang Mitch's mind, but it'll keep up Dem anger/enthusiam IMO.
Again, he has attacked the entire bill - as I posted above, he wrote a screed in the WaPo op-ed pages that was short on facts, but long on invective. And as I said, the most problematic attack from my perspective isn't the holiday one, but the invocation of "freedom of speech" to attack the anti-dark money provisions, because we Americans tend to get very stupid when people start making those sorts of claims.
I don't think the freedom of speech angle will get much traction, outside of the usual suspects of course. Transparency and accountability are pretty popular concepts for most people, and that's what those sections of the bill are actually pushing. Come up with some spiffy rhetoric along the lines of 'It's not about removing dark money from politics, it's about bringing dark money into the light.' The freedom of speech argument didn't make Citizens United a popular decision, I don't see it doing much damage to HR1 where it has even less applicability.
It's not about making a decision more "popular", it's about short circuiting critical thinking. We Americans aren't really good at actually discussing freedom of speech, for a number of reasons, and asserting it too often has people stop thinking about a policy critically.
I think the freedom of speech angle is so unrelated to the bill that bringing it up won't change any minds. The New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) tried that line with labeling calories on menus and got laughed at. Citizens United screamed freedom of speech and only really convinced the SCOTUS, not that the guys who made that decision needed much convincing. Freedom of speech as an argument shuts down debate only as far as people are willing to accept that freedom of speech is really in play. Since this bill doesn't limit speech, only anonymity, I don't see McConnell's blather moving the needle.
"Only" convinced SCOTUS :biggrin:
That's like saying the prosecution "only" convinced the jury. Those are the people who's opinion matters most!
+24
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
This feels like an easy fix for Democrats. Mitch tries to make the focus on the Federal holday stuff, the dems can get rid of it pretty easily and push the narrative to Mitch being obstinate.
Not that it will help much to chang Mitch's mind, but it'll keep up Dem anger/enthusiam IMO.
Again, he has attacked the entire bill - as I posted above, he wrote a screed in the WaPo op-ed pages that was short on facts, but long on invective. And as I said, the most problematic attack from my perspective isn't the holiday one, but the invocation of "freedom of speech" to attack the anti-dark money provisions, because we Americans tend to get very stupid when people start making those sorts of claims.
I don't think the freedom of speech angle will get much traction, outside of the usual suspects of course. Transparency and accountability are pretty popular concepts for most people, and that's what those sections of the bill are actually pushing. Come up with some spiffy rhetoric along the lines of 'It's not about removing dark money from politics, it's about bringing dark money into the light.' The freedom of speech argument didn't make Citizens United a popular decision, I don't see it doing much damage to HR1 where it has even less applicability.
It's not about making a decision more "popular", it's about short circuiting critical thinking. We Americans aren't really good at actually discussing freedom of speech, for a number of reasons, and asserting it too often has people stop thinking about a policy critically.
I think the freedom of speech angle is so unrelated to the bill that bringing it up won't change any minds. The New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) tried that line with labeling calories on menus and got laughed at. Citizens United screamed freedom of speech and only really convinced the SCOTUS, not that the guys who made that decision needed much convincing. Freedom of speech as an argument shuts down debate only as far as people are willing to accept that freedom of speech is really in play. Since this bill doesn't limit speech, only anonymity, I don't see McConnell's blather moving the needle.
"Only" convinced SCOTUS :biggrin:
That's like saying the prosecution "only" convinced the jury. Those are the people who's opinion matters most!
Citizens United was 5-4, with the usual suspects voting the usual way. The only legal argument presented could have been "Because fuck you, that's why." and Roberts, Alito, Thomas, etc. would have still knocked down McCain–Feingold.
SCOTUS's opinions matter the most, but I'm pretty fucking sure that they didn't hand down that decision due to some high minded defense of the freedom of speech.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
“Now that we have had a spectacular election outcome, it’s time to make sure the Democrats cannot take it away from us in 2011 and 2012,”
“No question the new (3rd) district is a bit less GOP, but not so much that it is in jeopardy of going south on us,”
“It was intended that the new 3rd would become slightly less Republican in order for the Walberg seat to become slightly more so.”
“In a glorious way that makes it easier to cram ALL of the Dem garbage in Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland and Macomb counties into only four districts,"
Walberg was asked about it and gave the comment, no comment, comment: "Congressman Walberg's focus then, as it is now, was serving his constituents."
I expect a certain amount of partisanship out of such events but that's a bit borderline. That last quote in particular is troubling with how close it is to calling one's political opponents illegitimate.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
“Now that we have had a spectacular election outcome, it’s time to make sure the Democrats cannot take it away from us in 2011 and 2012,”
“No question the new (3rd) district is a bit less GOP, but not so much that it is in jeopardy of going south on us,”
“It was intended that the new 3rd would become slightly less Republican in order for the Walberg seat to become slightly more so.”
“In a glorious way that makes it easier to cram ALL of the Dem garbage in Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland and Macomb counties into only four districts,"
Walberg was asked about it and gave the comment, no comment, comment: "Congressman Walberg's focus then, as it is now, was serving his constituents."
Just in time to restore district lines to legitimate constitutional self government ...before the last possible election before the next redistricting is done.
How many illegal elections have there been since Shelby now?
“Now that we have had a spectacular election outcome, it’s time to make sure the Democrats cannot take it away from us in 2011 and 2012,”
“No question the new (3rd) district is a bit less GOP, but not so much that it is in jeopardy of going south on us,”
“It was intended that the new 3rd would become slightly less Republican in order for the Walberg seat to become slightly more so.”
“In a glorious way that makes it easier to cram ALL of the Dem garbage in Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland and Macomb counties into only four districts,"
Walberg was asked about it and gave the comment, no comment, comment: "Congressman Walberg's focus then, as it is now, was serving his constituents."
I expect a certain amount of partisanship out of such events but that's a bit borderline. That last quote in particular is troubling with how close it is to calling one's political opponents illegitimate.
They do think Democrats are illegitimate and say so all the time.
The executive director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections revealed Monday that state officials had uncovered a “coordinated” and “unlawful” effort to collect absentee ballots on behalf of a Republican congressional candidate in the November election.
Kim Strach, the board’s executive director, made the comments at a closely watched public evidentiary hearing on Monday following a monthslong investigation into election irregularities in the state’s 9th Congressional District. The state board declined to certify the race last November and could order a new election after the hearing. Republican Mark Harris currently leads Democrat Dan McCready by 905 votes in the race.
Now what happens? Do they declare the election invalid? Do they disqualify him and certifiy the #2? Or does he still get the job, but then gets indicted?
“Now that we have had a spectacular election outcome, it’s time to make sure the Democrats cannot take it away from us in 2011 and 2012,”
“No question the new (3rd) district is a bit less GOP, but not so much that it is in jeopardy of going south on us,”
“It was intended that the new 3rd would become slightly less Republican in order for the Walberg seat to become slightly more so.”
“In a glorious way that makes it easier to cram ALL of the Dem garbage in Wayne, Washtenaw, Oakland and Macomb counties into only four districts,"
Walberg was asked about it and gave the comment, no comment, comment: "Congressman Walberg's focus then, as it is now, was serving his own unbridled lust for personal power."
Yeah, the Michigan State Legislature is a bunch of assholes at the moment. They're trying to fuck over Gov. Whitmer as hard as they can because their guy got wrecked in the election and they're more than a little sore about that, and I'm hoping that the courts just stomp them into the ground on this- I mean, with statements like that, how can you not see it as super-partisan bullshit?
I also fully expect the Repubs to try and stuff the districting commission full of their people, because stupidest timeline and they're that desperate and powerhungry.
"This woman, Lisa Britt, is giving testimony right now about an explosive absentee ballot theft ring in North Carolina. She admitted taking absentee ballots for money and discarding them. She was urged to plead the 5th and not testify. This is madness— democracy is up for sale."
"This next witness, Kelly Hendricks, testifies that she received gas money and money for “other things” she needed in exchange for collecting absentee ballots and handing them over to McCrae Dowless. This is the face of vote fraud in America today. #nc09"
Kristen Clarke is a lawyer for a legal civil rights organization. Her twitter feed also talks about other places (Texas) and followups.
You'll never guess which party to benefit, that she was taking these absentee ballots. NEVER. GUESS.
Now what happens? Do they declare the election invalid? Do they disqualify him and certifiy the #2? Or does he still get the job, but then gets indicted?
Last I heard, since the election was never certified the plan was election becomes invalid and it's a new primary and general.
This Dowless character interests me. He has a lot if history working on campaigns for both parties in a get out the vote capacity - he might be a true mercenary and works for whoever pays his price, or believes turnout helps his preferred party and doesn't care if the other party pays his bills.
The "who is" articles flying around about him mention he's actually warned past candidates he's worked for that they can't do stuff like this, and actively refused to discuss illegal tactics. In 2016 he claimed somebody else was pulling shenanigans with absentee ballots but nothing came of it.
On the one hand, this stuff seems out of character for his history. On the other hand he also spent time in prison for taking out life insurance on a dead guy, so his character is already fraud.
"This woman, Lisa Britt, is giving testimony right now about an explosive absentee ballot theft ring in North Carolina. She admitted taking absentee ballots for money and discarding them. She was urged to plead the 5th and not testify. This is madness— democracy is up for sale."
"This next witness, Kelly Hendricks, testifies that she received gas money and money for “other things” she needed in exchange for collecting absentee ballots and handing them over to McCrae Dowless. This is the face of vote fraud in America today. #nc09"
Kristen Clarke is a lawyer for a legal civil rights organization. Her twitter feed also talks about other places (Texas) and followups.
You'll never guess which party to benefit, that she was taking these absentee ballots. NEVER. GUESS.
The same party saying the candidate who paid someone to falsify hundreds of votes should be let off the hook and seated in congress because “he probably would have won anyway”?
"This woman, Lisa Britt, is giving testimony right now about an explosive absentee ballot theft ring in North Carolina. She admitted taking absentee ballots for money and discarding them. She was urged to plead the 5th and not testify. This is madness— democracy is up for sale."
"This next witness, Kelly Hendricks, testifies that she received gas money and money for “other things” she needed in exchange for collecting absentee ballots and handing them over to McCrae Dowless. This is the face of vote fraud in America today. #nc09"
Kristen Clarke is a lawyer for a legal civil rights organization. Her twitter feed also talks about other places (Texas) and followups.
You'll never guess which party to benefit, that she was taking these absentee ballots. NEVER. GUESS.
Oooh is it the ones that makes it hard for brown and poor people to vote, because they are worried about a form of voter fraud that can't be shown to measurably exist?
Posts
That would just mean more clerk's and other support staff having to work during the holiday to honor it, which sort of negates the point of making it a holiday.
MWO: Adamski
Doesn’t the Dem bill include other voting rights stuff? Are we only talking about this one because Mitch McConnell wants us to?
Presenting it to who? The low wage workers who did not get the holiday off to go vote?
It's the thing McConnell specifically commented on, so yes and yes.
He wrote a Washington Post op-ed attacking the bill as a whole. It's as odious as you think.
I support it even if it is not the perfect solution. Which the Dems obviously recognize as it's included with a package of other voting reforms.
The only problem with that is how it opens up all sorts of goosery. Again, no surprise that the GOP is behind denying these things and being utterly pedantic about when and which ones should be counted.
One thing that worries me with the pushback on HR 1 is the freedom of speech framing being used, because unfortunately, we Americans tend to be really stupid about it
But this is a teeeny part of the reforms, but is one that can be easily spun by Mitch to distract the GOP base from all the other shit that’s in there that they would like.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
These things aren't mutually exclusive!
Yeah, IMO they should be paired up. At least some will get some more much needed time off and that might cause enough of lull leading up to the election that some do find time off to do shit.
I haven't looked at the bill yet, but there needs to be more discussion about how some of the issues with voting are an extension of economic inequality. Even though I have a ton of complaints about my current job, my financial outlook isn't so bad that I can't find time to vote. The fact that a federal holiday won't help some find time to vote, shows that we have an issue where some literally have to work every available hour they have to get by and what little free time they do get, they might feel better using either to rest or spend time with family.
I'm still trying to figure out how much of that is a result of intentional shittiness, geared towards voter suppression, on the part of some wealthy individuals and how much of it is just some wealthy assholes being super callous and greedy, while not giving a shit on the wider impact of their shitty behavior.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
But with an early voting period and convenient voting places in NZ, it has a lot less utility to me.
No reason not to have both.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
No, he isn't. People are posting things of their own free will.
Fortunately New York and Michigan have improved their voting laws for the next election. Illinois is already pretty good. The main complaint I have is that the municipal election is next month rather than combined with the general.
Sorry my post was antagonistic to the folks here.
My irritation is all the stories focusing on the federal holiday part and Mitch’s description of poll workers as federal worker-leeches getting a week of vacation “hanging around the polls watching you vote,” and failing to mention any other god damned part of the bill
Campaign finance stuff includes public funding elections with small donations (government would match 6-to-1 on small donations), killing Citizens United and reigning in Super PACs.
Ethics stuff includes tax returns for Pres and VP, preventing tax payer money being used to settle sexual harrassment suits and giving the Office of Government Ehtics some real teeth to tackle lobbyist activity.
Voting stuff includes auto registration with opt out, colleges and universities to be registration locations (not just DMVs), beefing up election security and addressing partisan gerrymandering.
And there's some other stuff in there, but I just wrote the stuff that got my attention.
Obviously, it all really boils down to how it's actually written to see if it's good or will make a difference, but I like what I'm seeing. And I like that the Dems are pushing for a lot of this stuff.
Not that it will help much to chang Mitch's mind, but it'll keep up Dem anger/enthusiam IMO.
The media is complicit in helping the GOP sharp-elbow bills to death.
If it wasn't the Federal Holiday it'd be something else. Complaining it's given them ammunition or the news orgs are stuck on it is missing the forest for the trees. Since at least the Clinton impeachment hearings, it's been the GOP agenda to obfuscate issues and focus on ridiculous shit, strawman/slippery slope/red herring the shit out of it and poison an entire set of regulations.
We were never going to get a fair bit of media coverage or opposition debate on this bill.
Again, he has attacked the entire bill - as I posted above, he wrote a screed in the WaPo op-ed pages that was short on facts, but long on invective. And as I said, the most problematic attack from my perspective isn't the holiday one, but the invocation of "freedom of speech" to attack the anti-dark money provisions, because we Americans tend to get very stupid when people start making those sorts of claims.
I don't think the freedom of speech angle will get much traction, outside of the usual suspects of course. Transparency and accountability are pretty popular concepts for most people, and that's what those sections of the bill are actually pushing. Come up with some spiffy rhetoric along the lines of 'It's not about removing dark money from politics, it's about bringing dark money into the light.' The freedom of speech argument didn't make Citizens United a popular decision, I don't see it doing much damage to HR1 where it has even less applicability.
It's not about making a decision more "popular", it's about short circuiting critical thinking. We Americans aren't really good at actually discussing freedom of speech, for a number of reasons, and asserting it too often has people stop thinking about a policy critically.
I think the freedom of speech angle is so unrelated to the bill that bringing it up won't change any minds. The New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) tried that line with labeling calories on menus and got laughed at. Citizens United screamed freedom of speech and only really convinced the SCOTUS, not that the guys who made that decision needed much convincing. Freedom of speech as an argument shuts down debate only as far as people are willing to accept that freedom of speech is really in play. Since this bill doesn't limit speech, only anonymity, I don't see McConnell's blather moving the needle.
"Only" convinced SCOTUS :biggrin:
That's like saying the prosecution "only" convinced the jury. Those are the people who's opinion matters most!
Citizens United was 5-4, with the usual suspects voting the usual way. The only legal argument presented could have been "Because fuck you, that's why." and Roberts, Alito, Thomas, etc. would have still knocked down McCain–Feingold.
SCOTUS's opinions matter the most, but I'm pretty fucking sure that they didn't hand down that decision due to some high minded defense of the freedom of speech.
Funny, New Yorkers had something of a discussion about this:
http://gothamist.com/2018/09/12/food_4_votes.php
According to the New York State Board of Elections, technically it is a felony to provide said discount to voters.
New York can be such an odd state to live in at times...
Walberg was asked about it and gave the comment, no comment, comment: "Congressman Walberg's focus then, as it is now, was serving his constituents."
I expect a certain amount of partisanship out of such events but that's a bit borderline. That last quote in particular is troubling with how close it is to calling one's political opponents illegitimate.
Just in time to restore district lines to legitimate constitutional self government ...before the last possible election before the next redistricting is done.
How many illegal elections have there been since Shelby now?
They do think Democrats are illegitimate and say so all the time.
Yeah, the Michigan State Legislature is a bunch of assholes at the moment. They're trying to fuck over Gov. Whitmer as hard as they can because their guy got wrecked in the election and they're more than a little sore about that, and I'm hoping that the courts just stomp them into the ground on this- I mean, with statements like that, how can you not see it as super-partisan bullshit?
I also fully expect the Repubs to try and stuff the districting commission full of their people, because stupidest timeline and they're that desperate and powerhungry.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
"This woman, Lisa Britt, is giving testimony right now about an explosive absentee ballot theft ring in North Carolina. She admitted taking absentee ballots for money and discarding them. She was urged to plead the 5th and not testify. This is madness— democracy is up for sale."
"This next witness, Kelly Hendricks, testifies that she received gas money and money for “other things” she needed in exchange for collecting absentee ballots and handing them over to McCrae Dowless. This is the face of vote fraud in America today. #nc09"
Kristen Clarke is a lawyer for a legal civil rights organization. Her twitter feed also talks about other places (Texas) and followups.
You'll never guess which party to benefit, that she was taking these absentee ballots. NEVER. GUESS.
Last I heard, since the election was never certified the plan was election becomes invalid and it's a new primary and general.
The "who is" articles flying around about him mention he's actually warned past candidates he's worked for that they can't do stuff like this, and actively refused to discuss illegal tactics. In 2016 he claimed somebody else was pulling shenanigans with absentee ballots but nothing came of it.
On the one hand, this stuff seems out of character for his history. On the other hand he also spent time in prison for taking out life insurance on a dead guy, so his character is already fraud.
The same party saying the candidate who paid someone to falsify hundreds of votes should be let off the hook and seated in congress because “he probably would have won anyway”?
Oooh is it the ones that makes it hard for brown and poor people to vote, because they are worried about a form of voter fraud that can't be shown to measurably exist?