Why all the Election changes?

Albion · Mar 12, 2021

KCfromNC said:
Cutting out links to GOP voter suppression efforts in other states and the complaining that evidence was only provided for it in one state doesn't strike me as a serious response.

And I cannot take that view of the matter seriously. If we have a problem that affects most or all of the nation, and the question asked was about the effects upon whole nation...

...there is no way that it can be correct to cherry-pick the evidence by insisting that only one case in one state defines the issue.

mark46 · Mar 12, 2021

Speedwell said:
You are very persistent about missing the point--and misrepresenting my post; I don't see any evidence in your response that you have even read it.
I have never taken the position that the Federal government should forbid a voting place ID requirement. In fact, as I have made clear in this thread and in the other thread currently running on this topic, I am in favor of identifying the voter at the polling place. But I also see quite a bit of magical thinking about how that is to be done and how identity documents work.

should there be any federal rules with regard to ID's at the polls?

Speedwell · Mar 12, 2021

mark46 said:
should there be any federal rules with regard to ID's at the polls?

Yes, it's called the Voting Rights Act of 1975. I don't believe it mentions polling place ID specifically, but it would come into play if particular ID requirements were shown to be discriminatory.

iluvatar5150 · Mar 12, 2021

98cwitr said:
Had zero to do with race

You're wrong. Immediately upon the striking down of pre-clearance requirements, NC Republicans sought information on racial voting habits and sought to restrict things that would disproportionately affect blacks, because blacks tend to vote for Democrats. From the ruling:

After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.

In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation. “In essence,” as in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (LULAC), 548 U.S. 399, 440 (2006), “the State took away (minority voters’( opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it.” As in LULAC, “(t)his bears the mark of intentional discrimination.” Id.

https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/88...LI2qP68C1qahI8xA7t8eUozw1XACBzJqy8etoGDGiW73w

And it wasn't one judge. The first of two losses in court was in front of a panel of three judges.

everything to do with a fair election. 62% of NC was sympathetic. One judge struck down democracy, and the folks making the excuses have the word in their political party's name. Ironic huh?

No, it's not ironic. Your 62% of North Carolinians voted for policies that deliberately disenfranchised blacks in their state. In other words, your 62% of North Carolinians voted against democracy. Striking down the law preserved democracy.

stevil · Mar 12, 2021

Direct Driver said:
In the US, they are not supposed to have dominion over us. They are supposed to be our representatives, not our rulers.

They do have dominion over you. They can draft you and order you to put your life on the line to kill strangers that you have no beef with.

mark46 · Mar 12, 2021

Speedwell said:
Yes, it's called the Voting Rights Act of 1975. I don't believe it mentions polling place ID specifically, but it would come into play if particular ID requirements were shown to be discriminatory.

The courts should act against any discriminatory behavior.

Speedwell · Mar 12, 2021

mark46 said:
The courts should act against any discriminatory behavior.

They do. They hear cases brought under the Voting Rights Act.

9Rock9 · Mar 12, 2021

I do recall four years of hearing about Russia non-stop, a push to abolish the Electoral College as well as changing the voting system.

Concerns about election security were brought up again in 2020.

People on both sides of the spectrum are tired of the status quo, with the same two choices always being terrible. There are also lots of folks on either side who feel they aren't being heard.

Voting reform is the only way to help overcome polarization.

KCfromNC · Mar 13, 2021

Albion said:
And I cannot take that view of the matter seriously. If we have a problem that affects most or all of the nation, and the question asked was about the effects upon whole nation...

...there is no way that it can be correct to cherry-pick the evidence by insisting that only one case in one state defines the issue.

Good thing no one is doing this. But it does raise the question of why you'd bring up something which didn't happen rather than address the links showing what actually is.

Albion · Mar 13, 2021

9Rock9 said:
I do recall four years of hearing about Russia non-stop, a push to abolish the Electoral College as well as changing the voting system.

Concerns about election security were brought up again in 2020.

People on both sides of the spectrum are tired of the status quo, with the same two choices always being terrible. There are also lots of folks on either side who feel they aren't being heard.

Voting reform is the only way to help overcome polarization.

Ironically, at the same time as all those changes and calls for liberalizing voting eligibility have been in the news, states across the nation have been changing existing laws to make third parties have increased difficulty getting on the ballot and, once there, staying on the ballot.

And "ranked order voting," which would give the voters more choices, is having a lot of trouble making headway; but imposing "top two" primaries, which often produce only the members of a single political party on the November ballot for voters to choose between, appears to have met with more success.

When people talk about the "Duopoly," the idea of Republicans and Democrats conspiring together despite the squabbles existing between them on the surface, this is a prime example of it.

Albion · Mar 13, 2021

KCfromNC said:
Good thing no one is doing this.

Well, that's what was done on this thread, so that's that.

If, however, you dislike or object to the term "cherry pick," then I have some sympathy.

Perhaps it would have been better to say something like "deliberately select a single example and try to pass it off as representative of the general problem affecting the whole nation"...but you can see that this is a lot more cumbersome!

9Rock9 · Mar 13, 2021

Albion said:
Ironically, at the same time as all those changes and calls for liberalizing voting eligibility have been in the news, states across the nation have been changing existing laws to make third parties have increased difficulty getting on the ballot and, once there, staying on the ballot.

And "ranked order voting," which would give the voters more choices, is having a lot of trouble making headway; but imposing "top two" primaries, which often produce only the members of a single political party on the November ballot for voters to choose between, appears to have met with more success.

When people talk about the "Duopoly," the idea of Republicans and Democrats conspiring together despite the squabbles existing between them on the surface, this is a prime example of it.

I'm not really sure what we can do, then.

Albion · Mar 13, 2021

9Rock9 said:
I'm not really sure what we can do, then.

You could align with one of the associations or third parties working to change things, and hope to be able to play some role in making the situation at least a little better. Support from the general public for some kind of third party is at an all-time high, so that might be taken as a sign that all is not lost.

As for which one of the third parties, that would be something to decide in accordance with your own values and views, but most of those that get mentioned around here are so weak and face such uphill battles simply to exist, that you probably should think twice before joining any of them.

Of the existing third parties, the Libertarian Party is definitely the strongest in every respect, has been on every state ballot for the past two presidential elections, has good name recognition, and so on. There is also the Green Party, but its fortunes fell in the November 2020 election because this very progressive party has been undercut by the emergence of the Progressive/Socialist wing of the Democratic Party.

And because you identify as a Republican at present, I doubt that the Greens would appeal to you anyway. That brings us to the GOP itself. The party is unofficially split at the present and you might want to consider throwing your efforts behind the faction that is fed up with business as usual and with supporting those "Go along to get along" Republicans who are in elective office at present.

mark46 · Mar 13, 2021

Albion said:
Y. That brings us to the GOP itself. The party is unofficially split at the present and you might want to consider throwing your efforts behind the faction that is fed up with business as usual and with supporting those "Go along to get along" Republicans who are in elective office at present.

Please further define these two groups.

9Rock9 · Mar 13, 2021

Albion said:
You could align with one of the associations or third parties working to change things, and hope to be able to play some role in making the situation at least a little better. Support from the general public for some kind of third party is at an all-time high, so that might be taken as a sign that all is not lost.

As for which one of the third parties, that would be something to decide in accordance with your own values and views, but most of those that get mentioned around here are so weak and face such uphill battles simply to exist, that you probably should think twice before joining any of them.

Of the existing third parties, the Libertarian Party is definitely the strongest in every respect, has been on every state ballot for the past two presidential elections, has good name recognition, and so on. There is also the Green Party, but its fortunes fell in the November 2020 election because this very progressive party has been undercut by the emergence of the Progressive/Socialist wing of the Democratic Party.

And because you identify as a Republican at present, I doubt that the Greens would appeal to you anyway. That brings us to the GOP itself. The party is unofficially split at the present and you might want to consider throwing your efforts behind the faction that is fed up with business as usual and with supporting those "Go along to get along" Republicans who are in elective office at present.

Wouldn't a change to the first past the post system allow third parties to be more competitive.

For third parties, I really like the Reform Party, but it's pretty obscure compared to Greens and Libertarians.

I find Libertarians tolerable. Not so much in agreement with libertarianism, but they at least want to leave you alone.

Albion · Mar 13, 2021

9Rock9 said:
Wouldn't a change to the first past the post system allow third parties to be more competitive.

If I understand you, you're referring to the 'ranked voting' proposal.

If so, yes, it would do that. And that's why it has support among third parties, especially the Libertarians who are emphasizing this reform.

For third parties, I really like the Reform Party, but it's pretty obscure compared to Greens and Libertarians.

In fact, it's extinct except maybe for one state.

I find Libertarians tolerable. Not so much in agreement with libertarianism, but they at least want to leave you alone.

Yes. I wasn't pushing them on you, but just going with my point about many of the third parties being hopeful but nearly invisible and, therefore, ineffective.

The Libertarians might be the one exception to that dilemma and worth your consideration...if, that is, the LP were to fit well with your own views.

KCfromNC · Mar 14, 2021

Albion said:
If, however, you dislike or object to the term "cherry pick,"

No, I explained my objections

- asking for a one example, then complaining that only one example was posted rather than more
- when more were posted, deleting them when quoting the post and then acting as if they never were.

There continues to be lots of effort put in to not address the actual evidence posted. I can only imagine why.

Albion · Mar 14, 2021

KCfromNC said:
No, I explained my objections

Okay

KCfromNC · Mar 15, 2021

Albion said:
Okay

Great, glad we cleared up one of the many misconceptions you posted.

98cwitr · Mar 15, 2021

iluvatar5150 said:
You're wrong. Immediately upon the striking down of pre-clearance requirements, NC Republicans sought information on racial voting habits and sought to restrict things that would disproportionately affect blacks, because blacks tend to vote for Democrats. From the ruling:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/88...LI2qP68C1qahI8xA7t8eUozw1XACBzJqy8etoGDGiW73w

And it wasn't one judge. The first of two losses in court was in front of a panel of three judges.

No, it's not ironic. Your 62% of North Carolinians voted for policies that deliberately disenfranchised blacks in their state. In other words, your 62% of North Carolinians voted against democracy. Striking down the law preserved democracy.

And that ruling is predicated on spinning that "all black people are democrats," which isn't true. NCGOP pulled the data based on likelihood to vote Democrat because we have the majority of voters registered as "unaffiliated."

iluvatar5150 said:
You're wrong. Immediately upon the striking down of pre-clearance requirements, NC Republicans sought information on racial voting habits and sought to restrict things that would disproportionately affect blacks, because blacks tend to vote for Democrats. From the ruling:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/88...LI2qP68C1qahI8xA7t8eUozw1XACBzJqy8etoGDGiW73w

And it wasn't one judge. The first of two losses in court was in front of a panel of three judges.

No, it's not ironic. Your 62% of North Carolinians voted for policies that deliberately disenfranchised blacks in their state. In other words, your 62% of North Carolinians voted against democracy. Striking down the law preserved democracy.

They pulled race data to ID likelihood on who the person would vote for. We have 2.3M "unaffiliated" voters in NC. See the spin though? "They're racists out to get black people!" When in fact it's simply partisan politicking meeting identity politics.

in North Carolina, 85% of African American voters voted for John Kerry in 2004, and 95% voted for President Obama in 2008. N.C. State Conf., 2016 WL 1650774, at *86.

Doesn't make Voter ID racist, and wanting Voter ID has zero to do with discriminating against legal voters of any race. All races are represented in supporting Voter ID passage.

Why all the Election changes?

Why are Republicans passing/trying to pass so many voting bills.

To increase confidence in the electoral system

To limit voters

Other....please elaborate in comments.

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Godless and without morals

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sinner in need of grace.

Regular Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Sinner in need of grace.

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Sinner in need of grace.

Facilitator

Regular Member

Facilitator

Regular Member

Lord forgive me

Similar threads