Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
TobiasFunke

Voter Suppression

90 posts in this topic

On 10/11/2018 at 9:38 AM, TobiasFunke said:

Here's an example of a voting law that would have the opposite effect, so Republicans can understand what it looks like when your side is being victimized by voter suppression:

Let's say Pennsylvania passes a law stating that polling places are to be designated entirely by population density- one polling location per 500 people or whatever.  Geography cannot be considered. The stated rationale is that we don't want long lines at the polls. But what we actually want to do is make it relatively easier for people in downtown Philly to vote than people in rural Pennsylvania. I could tell you that having to drive 30 minutes each way to vote is easy peasy lemon squeezy- in fact it seems easier to me than remembering to save your utility bill two weeks before election day, or tracking down a tribal leader and getting a document from him, and then remembering to bring it with you to the polls. But in reality, people who have to drive 30 minutes each way to the polls are gonna vote far less often than people who can walk a half-block to the polls. Would Republicans be OK with that?

Honestly, that sounds awesome. Nothing worse than lines at the polls. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From WaPo columnist Brian Klaas who accurately points out that facts don't have a left wing bias. I am always amazed at those here who cavalierly dismiss statistical data and fact checking sites like Snopes or PolitiFact as Fake News.

https://twitter.com/brianklaas/status/1051442647062204419

Democrats fear voter suppression. Republicans fear vote fraud. The data show suppression is widespread; voter fraud is not. George W. Bush’s DoJ studied voter fraud & found it occurs on 0.00000013% of ballots. A recent study found 31 cases out of a billion ballots from 2000-2014.

The voter fraud/voter suppression debate is one of those frustrating “partisan” issues that we can answer with data. It’s not partisan to show that, empirically, voter suppression often influences the outcome of US elections; voter fraud does not. Facts shouldn’t be partisan.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 1:15 PM, munga30 said:

I made a partial mistake then.  Those two voted not to hear the appeal.  Still didn't find anything. 

They could have voted to hear the appeal and make it 4-4.  Then the Circuit Court ruling would have still been affirmed but not considered precedent.  When they voted to not hear the appeal, they made the Circuit Court ruling precedent.  So by voting the way they did, they were voting to affirm the lower Court ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2018 at 9:38 AM, TobiasFunke said:

Here's an example of a voting law that would have the opposite effect, so Republicans can understand what it looks like when your side is being victimized by voter suppression:

Let's say Pennsylvania passes a law stating that polling places are to be designated entirely by population density- one polling location per 500 people or whatever.  Geography cannot be considered. The stated rationale is that we don't want long lines at the polls. But what we actually want to do is make it relatively easier for people in downtown Philly to vote than people in rural Pennsylvania. I could tell you that having to drive 30 minutes each way to vote is easy peasy lemon squeezy- in fact it seems easier to me than remembering to save your utility bill two weeks before election day, or tracking down a tribal leader and getting a document from him, and then remembering to bring it with you to the polls. But in reality, people who have to drive 30 minutes each way to the polls are gonna vote far less often than people who can walk a half-block to the polls. Would Republicans be OK with that?

As long as the law is neutral and non-discriminatory, I don't see a problem with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

As long as the law is neutral and non-discriminatory, I don't see a problem with it.

If you were a rural voter you'd probably feel differently. And the effect would be to amplify the urban/suburban vote while discouraging the rural vote. This would help Democrats and hurt Republicans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NCCommish said:

If you were a rural voter you'd probably feel differently. And the effect would be to amplify the urban/suburban vote while discouraging the rural vote. This would help Democrats and hurt Republicans. 

I would just come up with some "disability" and vote by absentee ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

I would just come up with some "disability" and vote by absentee ballot.

So you would commit voter fraud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many people are we talking about? In total, how many folks who want to vote (and are otherwise eligible to do so) are not allowed to vote due to not having proper ID and/or paperwork?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.