New GOP efforts to make it harder to vote

[TLK Valentine]

The thing is, I hear Christians (and scripture) say different things in this regard. "God is in control of everything", while at the same time we bear responsibility for what we do.

Quite the theological paradox, isn't it?

If we go into a dangerous situation, we'll say that God will protect us. But if someone dies anyway, we say that it was their time.

Which saves us from the uncomfortable question about why we chose to go into that bad situation in the first place...

If we get a bad president who is destructive toward the people, should we say that it's what God wanted for us, or that he allowed us the type of president that the people who were depraved wanted and now they're paying for it?

IF we get a bad president? We've already had plenty of them before -- and I'm not even talking about Donald or whatever you may think of President Biden...

Taylor, Hoover, Tyler, Fillmore, Harding, Pierce, Buchanan... we could probably add a half-dozen names to the list depending on your particular political leanings...

Did God inflict these crooks, kooks, and chuckleheads on us, or did we do it to ourselves?

Hard to always tell which stance to take.

It helps if you don't believe in God

But seriously, the problem is that being a Christian and a loyal American requires a certain amount of doublethink, because when it comes to the nature of power (insofar as government is concerned), the two belief systems irreconcilably contradict one another:

Romans 13:1-4 -- Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

The Declaration of Independence -- We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

You can believe either one or the other; but good luck trying to believe them both at once.

 

[Christopher0121]

We need voter IDs. Plain and simple. That way we can track all votes, even our own votes, electronically.

 

[KCfromNC]

We need voter IDs. Plain and simple. That way we can track all votes, even our own votes, electronically.

I've proposed using vaccination cards as a good form of ID - they're freely available to anyone who wants them. There's no difficulty in getting them, so should be a fine solution to the "problem".

 

[Nithavela]

We need voter IDs. Plain and simple. That way we can track all votes, even our own votes, electronically.

And those voter IDs must be free of charge and easily obtainable with minimal hassle.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And those voter IDs must be free of charge and easily obtainable with minimal hassle.

Well, now you're taking all the fun out of it...

 

[Aldebaran]

I've proposed using vaccination cards as a good form of ID - they're freely available to anyone who wants them. There's no difficulty in getting them, so should be a fine solution to the "problem".

They're also easy to counterfeit, have no photo, and require no proof of who you are to receive one, and therefore are not a valid form of ID.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In a previous thread, we discussed various GOP efforts to make the election less Democratic (and therefore less democratic) in the run-up to the 2020 elections. Given the outcome of the election, it's clear that not enough votes were suppressed to satisfy the Republican Party, so new efforts are underway in various states.

In another symptom of the Republican Party's internal divisions, the Trumpiest members of the party are trying ever bolder ways of reducing the vote, while more moderate GOP members are wondering if this might make them look bad.

State GOP lawmakers propose flurry of voting restrictions to placate Trump supporters, spurring fears of a backlash

GOP state lawmakers across the country have proposed a flurry of voting restrictions that they say are needed to restore confidence in U.S. elections, an effort intended to placate supporters of former president Donald Trump who believe his false claims that the 2020 outcome was rigged.

But the effort is dividing Republicans, some of whom are warning that it will tar the GOP as the party of voter suppression and give Democrats ammunition to mobilize their supporters ahead of the 2022 midterms.

One bill in Georgia would block early voting on Sundays, which critics quickly labeled a flagrant attempt to thwart Souls to the Polls, the Democratic turnout effort that targets Black churchgoers on the final Sunday before an election.

After Fleming unveiled a sweeping proposal Thursday with provisions such as tough new identification requirements when requesting an absentee ballot and a prohibition on “line-warming” by nonpartisan groups — including such activities as distributing water in warm weather or blankets in the cold — Democrats and voting rights advocates pounced.

Is there really a valid reason to make voting some kind of endurance sport? In what way would this ensure the validity of the election? And we know from experience where the long lines in Georgia are going to be.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, a civil rights think tank, lawmakers in 33 states have crafted more than 165 bills to restrict voting so far this year — more than four times the number in last year’s legislative sessions. The group attributed the surge to “a rash of baseless and racist allegations of voter fraud” and accused lawmakers of a “backlash to historic voter turnout” last year.

Historic levels of democratic engagement and participation? Can't have that!

Some Republicans have made clear that they don’t think enacting voting restrictions is smart politics. In Georgia, House Speaker David Ralston and the Senate’s presiding officer, Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, have both announced that they will not support legislation that curtails eligibility to vote by mail, as some lawmakers there and in other states have proposed.

Those actions reflect the growing realization among Republicans that catering to a narrow core of party activists who remain fiercely loyal to Trump is an increasingly perilous path.

I do not see in here what laws you object to and why? I agree with suppressing the vote of people that are not allowed to vote, voting more than once etc. Can we have a real conversation about how to make sure the voting process is fair and above board? The left does not want to have that conversation.

How do you determine if someone is allowed to vote, is the person they say they are and if they have already voted? Are these things we should even know about someone that shows up to the polls?

 

[KCfromNC]

They're also easy to counterfeit, have no photo, and require no proof of who you are to receive one, and therefore are not a valid form of ID.

All problems which can be easily solved, at least by those who care about election security.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can we have a real conversation about how to make sure the voting process is fair and above board? The left does not want to have that conversation.

That's false, they've introduced several bills to make the voting process more fair and above board, in efforts to undo the damage done by GOP state legislatures

A new national holiday, redistricting reform and more: What’s in Dems’ latest voting bills

 

[tz620q]

That's false, they've introduced several bills to make the voting process more fair and above board, in efforts to undo the damage done by GOP state legislatures

A new national holiday, redistricting reform and more: What’s in Dems’ latest voting bills

You know the one thing that seems so illogical about federal control of elections is that when you look at any ballot in any election, there is only one person, the President, that is actually a federal race. All of the State Senators and Representatives are different from state to state and therefore are state races. The founding fathers realized this and rightfully gave the power to run elections to the states. The voting laws now are a lot fairer than they were then. We also have court protections against any group being deprived of the right to vote without due process (in the case of felons). If you study the early elections, many people travelled all day to reach a poll and vote. So we can't really point to minor inconveniences that we bear today and say that is depriving people the right to vote.

 

[DaisyDay]

We need voter IDs. Plain and simple. That way we can track all votes, even our own votes, electronically.

Wait, what? Votes are anonymous and private. We can track that you voted, but not for whom.

 

[DaisyDay]

You know the one thing that seems so illogical about federal control of elections is that when you look at any ballot in any election, there is only one person, the President, that is actually a federal race.

The office is a federal office that helps decide the fate/laws/taxes/distribution of all citizens, not just the citizens of its own state. A federal race is for a federal office.

All of the State Senators and Representatives are different from state to state and therefore are state races.The founding fathers realized this and rightfully gave the power to run elections to the states.

No, a state senator or a state representative serves in the state capital while US senators and US representatives serve in the Capitol. They are different animals.

The voting laws now are a lot fairer than they were then. We also have court protections against any group being deprived of the right to vote without due process (in the case of felons). If you study the early elections, many people travelled all day to reach a poll and vote. So we can't really point to minor inconveniences that we bear today and say that is depriving people the right to vote.

Voting laws are indisputably more fair nowadays as citizens other than land-owning white men can vote, but that is a poor argument to support unfair laws now.

 

[Aldebaran]

All problems which can be easily solved, at least by those who care about election security.

Yes, by having an ID with a photo, and backed up by other documents that required verification. Plenty such IDs already exist, for low cost, or even free. The "long voting lines" indicate that there are plenty of people who are capable of getting them.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You know the one thing that seems so illogical about federal control of elections is that when you look at any ballot in any election, there is only one person, the President, that is actually a federal race. All of the State Senators and Representatives are different from state to state and therefore are state races. The founding fathers realized this and rightfully gave the power to run elections to the states.

As already pointed out, the US Senate and US House of Representatives are also federal offices. Moreover, it makes sense to have all federal elections (no matter the number) held under the same standards and regulations. Where I live should not change whether or not I can vote for my President or my federal representatives. Following from that, there's little practical reason for states to have different regulations for their own state-wide elections, as that would require holding those elections in a separate facility and/or on a separate day - meaning greater costs for the state.

The voting laws now are a lot fairer than they were then. We also have court protections against any group being deprived of the right to vote without due process (in the case of felons). If you study the early elections, many people travelled all day to reach a poll and vote. So we can't really point to minor inconveniences that we bear today and say that is depriving people the right to vote.

The fact that things have improved does not mean that we shouldn't seek to improve further.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

As already pointed out, the US Senate and US House of Representatives are also federal offices. Moreover, it makes sense to have all federal elections (no matter the number) held under the same standards and regulations. Where I live should not change whether or not I can vote for my President or my federal representatives. Following from that, there's little practical reason for states to have different regulations for their own state-wide elections, as that would require holding those elections in a separate facility and/or on a separate day - meaning greater costs for the state.

If you want the federal government to regulate elections then you need to amend the US Constitution. That power is given to the legislature of each state to determine election laws. The federal government can intervein if rights are being violated.

The federal government was implemented for the states and the people of the states. It should not be allowed to determine how each state determines who it wants for president or congress. That is too much power in the federal government. If you allow this, the people in power can manipulate the rules to keep them in power. They already try to do it but it would be much easier if the people in power made the rules.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

If you want the federal government to regulate elections then you need to amend the US Constitution.

I'm aware. I was addressing a specific argument.

It should not be allowed to determine how each state determines who it wants for president or congress. That is too much power in the federal government. If you allow this, the people in power can manipulate the rules to keep them in power.

That's a fair point. However, I'll point out that the State election system already works like this, and the current hyper-partisan political climate means that members of a representative's party at the state level are perfectly happy to manipulate the rules to keep them in power. See the arguments over gerrymandering that have been going on for the past 20+ years.

I'm also speaking more to the topic of the thread - i.e. requirements for voting. That's something that I feel should be standardized. Whether or not a person is allowed to vote should not change from state to state.

 

[tz620q]

The office is a federal office that helps decide the fate/laws/taxes/distribution of all citizens, not just the citizens of its own state. A federal race is for a federal office.

A federal office with a state-wide mandate. An elected official represents the people who voted for him. A Virginia Senator does not represent the whole U.S. even if he has the ability to pass laws affecting everyone. The Voting Rights Act, if it had passed, would have been challenged in court and like many of Biden's extreme policies, it would have been found unconstitutional. That would have happened because our founding fathers were wiser than our current elected officials and realized that giving the federal government control over elections would eventually lead back to autocracy.

No, a state senator or a state representative serves in the state capital while US senators and US representatives serve in the Capitol. They are different animals.

I feel like you are being purposefully obtuse. I was speaking about how the Senators and Representatives were elected and the fact that each state has their own ballot for these U.S. offices. Why in the world should the federal government have a say in how a state picks their elected officials? Can't you see the slippery slope that that creates.

Voting laws are indisputably more fair nowadays as citizens other than land-owning white men can vote, but that is a poor argument to support unfair laws now.

Perhaps you can give some examples of unfair laws that have been passed recently. Then we can discuss specifics. Just be prepared to offer something other than opinions and polemics; because I love to research things.

 

[tz620q]

I'm aware. I was addressing a specific argument.


That's a fair point. However, I'll point out that the State election system already works like this, and the current hyper-partisan political climate means that members of a representative's party at the state level are perfectly happy to manipulate the rules to keep them in power. See the arguments over gerrymandering that have been going on for the past 20+ years.

I'm also speaking more to the topic of the thread - i.e. requirements for voting. That's something that I feel should be standardized. Whether or not a person is allowed to vote should not change from state to state.

I think both sides agree that broadly, there should be a right to vote granted to each citizen of the U.S. There are many states that deprive a person of that right if they are a convicted felon. Also, resident aliens and illegal aliens should be barred from voting. Do you agree with those two exceptions?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I think both sides agree that broadly, there should be a right to vote granted to each citizen of the U.S. There are many states that deprive a person of that right if they are a convicted felon. Also, resident aliens and illegal aliens should be barred from voting. Do you agree with those two exceptions?

If someone has completed their sentence, then I see no reason to continue to withhold their voting rights.

I think you could make a reasonable argument to allow legally resident non-citizens to vote - they pay taxes (no taxation without representation, and all that), and they're in the country legally - but I also don't think it's particularly important. People not in the country legally should not be allowed to vote though.

The major issue that I see is a lack of a consistent method to identify and register voters. While this doesn't disenfranchise any easily-identifiable classes or groups of people, it does mean that people who can vote in one state may not be able to in another - or at least may have a more difficult time doing so. That's not okay.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, by having an ID with a photo, and backed up by other documents that required verification. Plenty such IDs already exist, for low cost, or even free.

Which ones do you propose, specifically?