16
   

A MODEST PROPOSAL

 
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 07:44 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
mail-in for people with no special need to vote that way

It's not up to other people to determine a voter's "needs" — there could be many reasons — health, fear of the pandemic, lack of transportation, desire to avoid long lines. As long as the ballots are matched to the individuals on the list of eligible voters the results are believable

Quote:
sending unsolicited ballots to everyone

Fact check: Clarifying Trump’s 80 million ‘unsolicited’ ballots claim

Quote:
refusing to purge the election rolls of people who were no longer eligible

This sort of thing should be done as a matter of course by local boards of elections and not trotted out by politicians in an election year where people may arrive to vote, find they're no longer "eligible" and only discover later that their "ineligibility" was a mistake.

Quote:
the creation of unsupervised drop boxes for ballots

Unsupervised doesn't mean unsecure:
Quote:
Some of the skepticism surrounding drop boxes is the concern that they open the potential for fraud, though evidence to support this idea is scarce. The Stanford-MIT report found that droboxes "are extremely safe against misuse" when coupled with common sense monitoring practices, such as video monitoring.

"Ballot drop boxes generally weigh over 600 pounds and are built to be more secure than the typical USPS mailbox," the Stanford-MIT report said. "The tamper-proof mechanisms vary by manufacturer, but they often include special locks to prevent opening, as well as tamper evident seals and one-way entrance slots."

In Colorado, which has used a majority vote-by-mail system for years and sees 75% of ballots returned by drop boxes, few issues have arisen, according to Secretary of State Jena Griswold, a Democrat.

"They're safe, they're secure, and Coloradans love them," Griswold told ABC News, noting that the boxes are kept up 24-hour video surveillance and are bolted to the ground. "Colorado is proof of how well drop boxes work and how secure they are."

msn

Quote:
allowing election harvesting (people not connected with the election board collecting ballots from the elderly with the promise to turn them in

The wording makes this sound sinister, like organ harvesting. There's nothing inherently wrong with the practice; a social worker might know of someone who couldn't leave their home and could arrange to have the ballot collected and delivered by trusted individuals vetted by the election board.

Quote:
no ID to vote

In many cases, to obtain a non-driver voter ID you need an ID. This "Catch-22" can turn into a bureaucratic nightmare. Why not simply check off the individual's name when he identifies himself at the polling station? How much work would be involved for people to determine all the voters who didn't have approved photo IDs and then send impostors out on election day to claim to be that particular voter? It's not a realistic situation at all. Fraud perpetrated on that large a scale would be obvious.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 07:50 am
@Brandon9000,
We’ve always had the option of postal voting.

I’ve never had to show id to vote either.

I don’t live in a fascist state.

Who issues your id?

Who decides who is allowed to vote?

It’s fascism pure and simple, you want to deny people who are not like you the right to vote.

At least be honest.


maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 08:06 am
The question is; Does one party get to single-handedly make the rules?

There are all kinds of ways to do an election, and some modern democratic countries have voter id, some don't. Some allow postal voting some don't. You can make an argument for any one of these, and lots of different voting systems seem to work.

But Hightor is trotting out a bunch of Democratic talking points all of which are designed to benefit the Democratic party in elections. They will argue that they are not... but it is commonly understood. And, Come on, you can't make an argument of "Republicans stealing democracy" and at the same you say that these issues don't benefit one party over the other.

I only have one objection to Hightor's taking points (I think he is grossly downplaying the issue of ballot harvesting). But the important point is this. They aren't factually wrong, but they are partisan. You could easily switch them to support in-person only voting for anyone who is physically able.

If you have one political party (in this case the Democrats) single-handedly setting the rules for national elections over the objection of the other major party... that is a big problem.

hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 08:52 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Does one party get to single-handedly make the rules?

Yes. The right to make rules is part of being in a legislative majority — it happens all the time.

Quote:
...all of which are designed to benefit the Democratic party in elections.


That's a very partisan interpretation. These measures would help elderly, rural, physically challenged Republican constituencies as well.

Quote:
You could easily switch them to support in-person only voting for anyone who is physically able.


Why would that be done?

Quote:
If you have one political party (in this case the Democrats) single-handedly setting the rules for national elections over the objection of the other major party... that is a big problem.


As opposed to another political party single-handedly coordinating voting procedures in 30+ states over the objection of the other major party?

I think having uniform rules to cover national elections is a good idea. Why should it be harder to voter in one state than in another? Why should eligibility requirements differ from state to state?

maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 09:49 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Yes. The right to make rules is part of being in a legislative majority — it happens all the time.


This seems to be an important difference of opinion.

You think a party with a legislative majority has the right to change the rules for future elections.

As a citizen who wants a functional electoral system, I think that changes to election rules should be bipartisan. Preventing the majority party from changing the rules for future elections is one of the best arguments I can think of for a filibuster.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 11:03 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
You think a party with a legislative majority has the right to change the rules for future elections.

By definition, election reforms change the rules for future elections.

I'm not a fan of the political parties, nor was the last good president of the USA. (Political parties, as with the filibuster, are not even mentioned in the Constitution.) But that's been the system for the past 220 years. I'd prefer that national election laws be established by a non-partisan (not bi-partisan) commission, but what "I'd prefer" is just a silly conceit which has no bearing on the situation. The reality is that the party in power gets to write new laws and reform old ones.

I don't know if you're aware of the degree of coordination among the various Republican-controlled states as they work to restrict voting. Many of the proposed laws use identical language.

One solution for a minority party such as the current GOP would be to attract new voters, voters who usually side with another party or just sit out elections. If the Republicans are afraid of non-white voters because they tend to vote Democratic there's nothing stopping them from trying to appeal to that demographic and peel off votes from the opposition. Immigration reform, childcare, and job training are all areas which might appeal to members of the non-white demographic. In the last election, Trump attracted quite a few of the votes of non-white males because they bought into his machismo act. If he'd promised to renew DACA, establish community childcare programs, and successfully control the pandemic he might have attracted enough minority support to win the election.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 11:32 am
@hightor,
Max’s argument is the same argument used against the 1832 Reform Act.

Prior to the Act there were rotten boroughs, places that no longer existed but still returned an MP, pocket boroughs, where all the votes were controlled by one man, the cities of Manchester and Liverpool had no representation and the qualifications for voting differed from borough to borough.

Guess what, when the Act was passed there wasn’t anarchy and the end of the World, things actually got a bit better.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 11:44 am
@hightor,
Quote:

One solution for a minority party such as the current GOP would be to attract new voters, voters who usually side with another party of just sit out elections.


In Texas, the Democrats are the minority party. They aren't following your advice.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 11:56 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:
They aren't following your advice.

First thing, I never "advised" anyone connected with the Democratic Party in Texas — or anywhere else.

Secondly, the demographics in Texas are changing rapidly — which is precisely the reason for Abbot's voter suppression legislation.

Try thinking outside of your bubble.
Mame
 
  5  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 12:32 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Try thinking outside of your bubble.


You're asking the impossible. And he wouldn't anyway because he knows everything.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 12:40 pm
@Mame,
Mame wrote:

hightor wrote:

Try thinking outside of your bubble.


You're asking the impossible. And he wouldn't anyway because he knows everything.


This is another example of Mame following me from thread to thread to say something nasty. She has not contributed to this thread at all, nor does she have anything constructive to say.

She is just here to bitch. If Mame had something intelligent to say on the topic, I wouldn't have a problem with her being here.

I can take a jab from Hightor, he is actually making thoughtful points and is engaging in a real discussion. These incessant nasty pointless posts from Mame and Glitterbag are idiotic and petty.
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 12:50 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
She is just here to bitch.


I see nothing bitchworthy in her comment. She wasn't complaining, she made an observation.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 12:59 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
She is just here to bitch.


I see nothing bitchworthy in her comment. She wasn't complaining, she made an observation.


Bullshit Hightor! If that comment were made about you, you would consider it a personal attack. This is fine, because you made this jab as part of a discussion in which you are taking the time to address the topic.

Mame's only post on this thread was a personal jab pointed at me that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. And it is not just this topic, she does this on post after post.

Yes, I consider that "bitchworthy".

Now, I would just as soon end this silly little interruption and get back to the topic at hand.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 01:25 pm
@hightor,
In one post you set out a principle that the majority political party has the "right" to change the election rules over the objections of the minority party.

In another post, you seem to say that this principle doesn't apply in Texas. It doesn't matter the specific arguments you are making. You are arguing against your own principle.

That is the point I am making.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 01:31 pm
@maxdancona,
1) My opinion is that especially in the case of election rules there should be strong protections for the minority party. Without this, a party can use its majority to remain in power by changing the rules to tilt future elections in their favor.

2) I don't like politicians (neither Democrats or Republicans) playing games with election rules. I realize that this is difficult to stop, but as a voter I would like to punish either party I feel goes over the line.

3) If there is any issue that a fillibuster is appropriate... legislation concerning how elections are run is it.

Having one party change the rules of how elections are run over the objections of the minority party is obviously a bad thing.

hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 01:50 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
In another post, you seem to say that this principle doesn't apply in Texas.


No, I didn't say that the principle didn't apply. I didn't say the Texas GOP didn't have the right to change election laws to their advantage, although I think they somewhat overplayed their hand. I was pointing out that with the dynamic demographics, the GOP could become a minority party in Texas and that's one of the reasons they are trying to suppress the vote. If they want to keep winning elections and don't want to change their message to appeal to non-white Texans, suppressing the opposition vote is all they have. I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said here.
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 01:53 pm
@hightor,
Ok,

If you are saying that the Texas GOP has the "right" to change the voting laws to its advantage, than you are correct, there is no contradiction.

I disagre. I don't think the Texas GOP has this right, at least not in a moral sense. And I think the minority party in Texas should have leverage to force compromises when it comes to elections.


0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 01:54 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
My opinion is that especially in the case of election rules there should be strong protections for the minority party.

That's partisan. There should be no special rules carved out to "protect" any party. It's not parties that need protection, it's the rights of voters.
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 02:31 pm
@hightor,
The voters are are the problem. The voters have the ultimate control. The voters have the responsibility. If voters werent so easily swayed by 30 second clips, mistruths and manipulative argumenrs, the parties wouldnt act this way and we wouldn't be in this mess.

If the voters weren't such idiots, they would elect decent people to office who would work out sensible compromise. Instead, voters of both parties reward extremism, ad hominems and absolutist arguments.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  4  
Reply Tue 20 Jul, 2021 02:43 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

1) My opinion is that especially in the case of election rules there should be strong protections for the minority party. Without this, a party can use its majority to remain in power by changing the rules to tilt future elections in their favor.

2) I don't like politicians (neither Democrats or Republicans) playing games with election rules. I realize that this is difficult to stop, but as a voter I would like to punish either party I feel goes over the line.

3) If there is any issue that a fillibuster is appropriate... legislation concerning how elections are run is it.

Having one party change the rules of how elections are run over the objections of the minority party is obviously a bad thing.




Max...the "minority" party in America right now is the Republican Party...

...and the Republican Party has a constitutionally built-in huge thumb on the scale in its favor. It has a whole hand and forearm on the scale in its favor.

The conservative faction (individual people) of America have a huge built-in advantage in the Senate and Electoral College...the two foremost political entities in our Republic. The individuals of the conservative faction get 10 times the say in what happens here than they deserve. Conservative America starts the marathon at the 12 mile post...or the 15 mile post.

And now they are trying to expand that advantage even more using voter suppression laws.

Stop with the crying about unfairness, because the unfairness is all to the advantage of the side you are defending here.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » A MODEST PROPOSAL
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 06:02:47