Drive Through Voting. Really?

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Do you deny that Drive Through Voting will directly help the Democrats?

It will help to increase minority and rural participation. Those aren't solidly Democratic votes. According to various polls, Trump won the votes of more than a quarter of non-white males, so it may very well help Republicans in statewide elections. If we make it easier for eligible voters to vote securely, and Republicans subsequently lose seats, that's not something that actually needs to be remedied. It is the remedy.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

1. I agree with you that everyone should have the right to vote (with some minumal qualifications such as age)

2. I disagree that everyone should have the obligation to vote.

I am Ok with you disagreeing with me on this. I simply want to make sure you aren't confusing these two issues.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I'm not confused, Max. I'm angry you deem a section of Americans unworthy to cast a ballot for some reason only you think is unnecessary. It's wrong.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

I'm not confused, Max. I'm angry you deem a section of Americans unworthy to cast a ballot for some reason only you think is unnecessary. It's wrong.

I accept your anger. I want to clarify this though. You think that Derek Chauvin not only should have the right to vote in 2024, but that he should be obligated to help choose our government because he is "worthy" (in your words) to cast a ballot.

Do I understand you correctly?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I strongly disagree with your "dream" of 100% voter participation.

1. We have to agree to disagree.
2. It doesn't really matter since it is only a dream
3. It will never be a reality.
4. I was just expressing my dream so that you know exactly where I stand on voting.

Quote:

I don't see any reason that this is even desirable.

I speak for myself and I find it very desirable.

Quote:

Everyone should have the right to vote.

We agree.

Quote:

That doesn't mean that everyone should vote.

1. And no one is required to vote, but I wish everyone were required to vote.
2. Even if you voted as none of the above as one of your choices.
3. It still would be a casted vote.

Quote:

In an ideal world only people who care enough to actual be informed on the issues would vote.

In an ideal world mandatory voting would ultimately squash voter suppression.

Quote:

I don't see a practical way to enforce this.

1. Remember, this is not a reality.
2. But, I guess that anyone who fail to cast a vote could be fined maybe a $50 fine for failure to cast a vote.
3. I guess there could be a method to determine who casted a vote.
4. I am not talking about determining how each person voted.
5. I am only talking about a method of determining who has or hasn't casted a vote.
6. A civil fine of $50 each time you fail to cast a vote.
7. I guess the $50 civil fine could be assessed when you file your taxes each year.
8. None of this matters, because this is never going to become a reality.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Where's your evidence showing DTV slants elections towards the Democrats?

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Where's your evidence showing DTV slants elections towards the Democrats?

For one, the Republicans are opposing it and the Democrats are pushing for it. Why do you think that is?

Do you think the Republicans are against it (or the Democrats for it) on principle? These are politicians who want to win elections.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

And yes, I am pushing a political narrative.

Of course you are.

William J. Bernstein wrote:

People do not deploy the powerful human intellect to dispassionately analyze the world. Instead, they rationalize how the facts conform to their emotionally derived preconceptions. Humans understand the world through narratives. However much we flatter ourselves about our individual rationality, a good story, no matter how analytically deficient, lingers in the mind, resonates emotionally, and persuades more than the most dispositive facts or data.

I don't mind you spinning your own self-serving "narrative". What amuses me is that you think you know what everyone else's narrative consists of as well. And you don't. You just divide people into either "the left" or "the right" and assume they all think alike, leaving you alone in some mythical center where both sides talk to one another and recognize each other's "valid points". That's your narrative.

Quote:

When someone is unwilling to accept facts that don't fit with their political narrative, or is unable to see when another narrative has valid points...

You keep spouting this line about the other side having "valid points". Do you think voter suppression is a valid point?

Quote:

Do you think the Republicans are against it (or the Democrats for it) on principle?

Some are, some aren't. They're not monolithic groups. It's not impossible for principles to align with a winning election strategy. In general, I think the quest for fair elections with maximal voter participation is a worthy goal, whether or not either side buys into it. And if one side opposes it that doesn't somehow make their point "valid". It only makes their antidemocratic intentions obvious.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You think that Derek Chauvin not only should have the right to vote in 2024, but that he should be obligated to help choose our government because he is "worthy" (in your words) to cast a ballot.

Considering Mr. Chauvin will be incarcerated for the next 20+ years, his chances of using a drive thru vote box is nil.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

But surely you can think of some other way for his vote to be counted.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

But that's not the purpose of Max's rant about DTV, now is it?

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

It's a point that supports his main argument.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

No it doesn't.

Equating incarcerated people with drive thru voting is stupid. How would they get there, Uber??

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It's a point that supports his main argument.

And exactly how does it do that? His main argument seems to be that he opposes the use of absentee ballots.

Doesn't look like Chauvin will be voting anytime soon:

Quote:

In Minnesota, individuals convicted of a felony are not eligible to vote until they have completed their sentence-including prison time, jail time, and parole or probation-unless they are granted a "Stay of Adjudication," allowing individuals to avoid a conviction with successful completion of probation.

Nothing about absentee ballots there.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

Follow along Neptune.

Real Music and I were talking about 100% voter participation.

1 Reply

@hightor,

At what point do you think Derek Chauvin should vote again? People are arguing for 100% participation... I don't know if this means prisoners or not.

Chauvin will be up for parole in 15 years. Does he have an "obligation" to vote to help choose our government after that point?

One of the things I find frustrating about one-sided partisan arguments is the unwillingness to think about the real consequences of their extreme positions. If we are talking about getting everyone to vote, that will onclude Proud Boys, and incels, and neo-Nazis and sex offenders. We will be encouraging and prodding all of the undesirables to vote.

It made me laugh when a reporter asked people who were part of the mob.who stormed the Capitol if they had voted. Most said "no". Maybe if more of the alr-right had voted, they wouldn't have had any reason to storm the Capitol.

It seems like Real Music is being consistent and is willing to accept the implications of his position. I respect that.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Your assertions of Republicans opposing, and Democrats pushing DTV is not evidence showing DTV slants elections towards the Democrats.

That politicians want to win elections is not evidence that DTV slants elections towards the Democrats.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

I disagree with you. The fact the Republicans are fighting afainst drive through voting is evidence.

Bur more important there is a basic contradiction underlying your argument.

Explain why a law restricting drive through voting counts as an "attack on Democracy"?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Well hell, let's get 12 yr olds to vote. And don't leave out preschoolers!

Hey how about the unborn?? The Conservatives just may have a shot at winning!

Yes Max, you're so right, 100% participation will be WONDERFUL!!

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

My dear Neotune,

It is Real Music who is arguing for 100% voter participation. Your argument is with him, not me.

I don't support 100% voter participation. If you arent either, then you and I are on the same side on this issue. I don't have a problem with you agreeing with me once in a while.

0 Replies

Drive Through Voting. Really?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know