Jump to content
270soft Forum

Voter Suppression Poll


Voter Suppression Poll  

22 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following do you consider unethical voter suppression that should be eliminated by non-partisan electoral reform?

    • A majority party gerrymandering a state so as to keep a majority for the long-term.
    • A majority party creating stricter ID requirements, that mostly effects or inconveniences the minority party on election day.
    • A majority party placing polling stations in more convenient areas for their districts and less convenient areas for districts where the minority party is more numerous.
    • A majority party that restricts limits polling stations or drop off stations in such a way that effects or inconveniences a demographic overwhelming associated with the minority party.
    • A poll tax that limits voting to those with expendable cash, especially with the idea that the minority party is supported by more impoverished voters.
    • Literacy tests that limit voting to those that can easily pass a literacy test, especially with the idea that such a test will impact voter turnout of the minority party.
    • A majority party that purges voter rolls that are composed primarily of a voter demographic that votes for the minority party.
    • A majority party that limits early or absentee voting, especially when the minority party is expected to take advantage of this kind of voting more than the majority party.
    • A majority party that spreads false information about voting to minority party demographics with the intent to have that demographic cast invalid ballots.
    • A majority party eliminates a 3rd party on the ballot primarily because that 3rd party might lead to the minority party winning.
    • I don't consider any of these as voter suppression.
      0
  2. 2. How tolerant are you of voter suppression?

    • I favor voter suppression when it helps my preferred party.
    • I favor some voter suppression when it helps my preferred party.
    • I don't favor voter suppression, even if it helps my preferred party.
  3. 3. If you were a US Senator would you sign a bi-partisan bill that makes it illegal/eliminates all of those forms of voter suppression?

    • Yes, I'd advocate for it wholeheartedly.
    • Yes, even if I have some reservations.
    • No, primarily because electoral reform should be left to the states, even if they perversely seek to suppress votes.
    • No, primarily because I think it would help one party more than the other.
      0
    • No, because this reform bill doesn't go far enough!
      0
    • No, because the bill seems more like something that would make my opponents look good.
      0


Recommended Posts

Gerrymandering is a crazy thing in modern politic which needs to be fought whatever which party does that.

It's not only anti liberal in the philosophic way, it's also anti-democratic.

On the voter suppression tactics we know that it already changed the fate of the 2000 election.

The lawyer of Bush already told on CNN "A majority of people who went to the polls in Florida wanted that Al Gore becomes president, and a majority among the people who had valid votes elected George W Bush".

I personnaly believe that the best way for Trump to be re-elected is to disturb the vote by mail and recounts as president to trigger delays in order to create a situation which would end up close to the 2000 scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Edouard said:

Gerrymandering is a crazy thing in modern politic which needs to be fought whatever which party does that.

It's not only anti liberal in the philosophic way, it's also anti-democratic.

On the voter suppression tactics we know that it already changed the fate of the 2000 election.

The lawyer of Bush already told on CNN "A majority of people who went to the polls in Florida wanted that Al Gore becomes president, and a majority among the people who had valid votes elected George W Bush".

I personnaly believe that the best way for Trump to be re-elected is to disturb the vote by mail and recounts as president to trigger delays in order to create a situation which would end up close to the 2000 scenario.

Gerrymandering is neither "modern" nor unipartisan.    It's named after Elbridge Gerry, one of our founding fathers, for a reason.  It's been around for about as long as our nation has been around, eagerly practiced by both parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

Gerrymandering is neither "modern" nor unipartisan.    It's named after Elbridge Gerry, one of our founding fathers, for a reason.  It's been around for about as long as our nation has been around, eagerly practiced by both parties.

Of course ! I wanted to say that in modern politic this system is completely crazy.

It's like if the US were still asking electors to pay a certain amount of cash to vote.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm surprised that so far the only openly corrupt would-be US Senator is @Conservative Elector 2. Basically, everyone else, excluding @Mark_W, is decisively anti-voter suppression. 

I simply don't see most of what is labeled as voter suppression, as actual voter suppression. I think it's absolutely legitimate to impose ID requirements or literacy tests. There's no voter suppression here, because it should be possible for all to fulfil these requirements. I also don't favor early or absentee voting in cases which could be avoided because these forms of voting create chaos. I am not talking about taking away the right to vote of people in nursery homes and so on. What I am talking about is people who are simply not interested in going to the voting booth because it's inconvenient for them. Why should the state mail out thousands of ballots if those people can't go to the poll station? We shouldn't encourage disregard for the democratic process. Additionally I think it's a legitimate concern to keep third parties off the ballot if their goal is to undermine democracy or if they hold a complete inacceptable ideology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I simply don't see most of what is labeled as voter suppression, as actual voter suppression. I think it's absolutely legitimate to impose ID requirements or literacy tests. There's no voter suppression here, because it should be possible for all to fulfil these requirements. I also don't favor early or absentee voting in cases which could be avoided because these forms of voting create chaos. I am not talking about taking away the right to vote of people in nursery homes and so on. What I am talking about is people who are simply not interested in going to the voting booth because it's inconvenient for them. Why should the state mail out thousands of ballots if those people can't go to the poll station? We shouldn't encourage disregard for the democratic process. Additionally I think it's a legitimate concern to keep third parties off the ballot if their goal is to undermine democracy or if they hold a complete inacceptable ideology.

Sounds like you should have clicked option #2 on question #2.

Here's a new question to test if you're corrupt or not: Would you favor the voter suppression that you do not consider voter suppression if its primary purpose was to give your party (the majority party) an easier time in the election than the minority party. I think that's the central message. If you think that's something that's okay or should be allowable, then you're corrupt, whether you believe yourself to be or not. 

Here's another new question: Would you support ID Requirements, literacy test, restricting absentee ballots if this meant that your party would lose the election? 

I just find it kind of shocking that you're the only outlier here, even among the other conservative people here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, vcczar said:

Done. Voter suppression is a VERY big problem in the U.S. Alongside other factors, like the antiquated Electoral College, the BIPARTISAN, not non-partisan, FEC, and it's funding rules, ballot access flaming hoops to jump through in many States for non-Duopoly parties, Primary focus, even in public electoral systems, on Duopoly Primaries virtually exclusively, "sore loser," laws, incentives for media to exclusively focus on Duopoly coverage, marginalizing other party coverage, and the Federal courts that judge any regularities in electoral matters made up completely of justices selecting for partisan patronage and spoils appointments indeed, as I've pointed out a few times, makes the U.S. electoral system and partisan culture  and true choice and free and fair and contest nature one of the five worst in the First World (note, I DIDN'T say the WHOLE world, before anyone jumps on me), along with Japan, Singapore, Portugal, and Hungary, and with Romania close to that after having effectively legalized bribery of elected officials and candidates for office by big donors in an act similar to the treasonous U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Citizen's United.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vcczar said:

Sounds like you should have clicked option #2 on question #2. 

Maybe, I don't know. Whenever there's talking about voter suppression, I picture armed people hindering others violently from voting. That would be intolerable and actual voter suppression for me and that's what happened during the reconstruction. I don't think we see something like in this today's America. But getting a voting ID for example is more or less an instrument to increase voting integrity.

9 hours ago, vcczar said:

Here's a new question to test if you're corrupt or not: Would you favor the voter suppression that you do not consider voter suppression if its primary purpose was to give your party (the majority party) an easier time in the election than the minority party. I think that's the central message. If you think that's something that's okay or should be allowable, then you're corrupt, whether you believe yourself to be or not. 

I don't think the purpose should be necessarily to help one party. I think the increase of election integrity should matter. If one party closes polling stations in certain areas, people could still vote in another place. If they don't do, it's actually their fault.

9 hours ago, vcczar said:

Here's another new question: Would you support ID Requirements, literacy test, restricting absentee ballots if this meant that your party would lose the election? 

I just find it kind of shocking that you're the only outlier here, even among the other conservative people here. 

It's hard to tell honestly, but I hope I would. If my fellow supporters can't fulfil some of these criteria to increase the integrity of elections I'd probably say we are not worth to win in that state. 

By the way you could add my vote to the poll tax. I am against taxes on the whole, so I wouldn't support this measure. However, as I outlined actual voter suppression is still something different for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

But getting a voting ID for example is more or less an instrument to increase voting integrity.

In what way?  Impersonating individual voters at the polls is a terribly inefficient way to affect elections.  Any kid who wants to drink can get a fake ID with ease, somebody with the resources to throw an election would have no trouble doing so.  Poll workers aren't trained to spot fake ID's.

I miss the days when conservatives were against the government tracking everything you do.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pilight said:

In what way?  Impersonating individual voters at the polls is a terribly inefficient way to affect elections.  Any kid who wants to drink can get a fake ID with ease, somebody with the resources to throw an election would have no trouble doing so.  Poll workers aren't trained to spot fake ID's.

I miss the days when conservatives were against the government tracking everything you do.

PATRIOT Act and 9/11 changed what a good bunch of Republicans stood/stand for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pilight said:

Any kid who wants to drink can get a fake ID with ease, [...]  Poll workers aren't trained to spot fake ID's.

There starts the problem. The system certainly needs to improve to counter voter fraud.

8 minutes ago, pilight said:

I miss the days when conservatives were against the government tracking everything you do.

That depends for me. Respecting the law is an important cornerstone for my own philosophy. I am probably very tough on matters like this and not representing the majority of the conservative movement here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

PATRIOT Act and 9/11 changed what a good bunch of Republicans stood/stand for.

True.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

There starts the problem. The system certainly needs to improve to counter voter fraud.

That depends for me. Respecting the law is an important cornerstone for my own philosophy. I am probably very tough on matters like this and not representing the majority of the conservative movement here.

Just curious, do they have voter ID requirements in Austria?  They are pretty much standard throughout the Commonwealth, so I find American apprehension about them to be rather silly, but I am just curious as to what it may be like in Austria/greater EU area.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CPE said:

Just curious, do they have voter ID requirements in Austria?  They are pretty much standard throughout the Commonwealth, so I find American apprehension about them to be rather silly, but I am just curious as to what it may be like in Austria/greater EU area.

Thanks for asking! Of course, you have to show your passport when going to the polling station. Without this you'll not be able to vote and not even Austria's left complains about that as far as I know. However, you have not to register as a voter or a party separately.

You also have to fill in your passport number when requesting an absentee ballot (which caused massive problems in the 2016 presidential election of which the 2nd round had to be redone in the whole country).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think voting is the most important process in our nation and the fact that an ID is not required is absurd. My god to pick up orders from taco bell I have to show my ID but not for voting. I answered that all of the responses were suppression but both parties do it to each other in terms of gerrymandering. It is very easy and simple to get a state ID card. It is sad to see the left demonize something very sensible. Even Iraq has a form of voter ID.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Thanks for asking! Of course, you have to show your passport when going to the polling station. Without this you'll not be able to vote and not even Austria's left complains about that as far as I know. However, you have not to register as a voter or a party separately.

You also have to fill in your passport number when requesting an absentee ballot (which caused massive problems in the 2016 presidential election of which the 2nd round had to be redone in the whole country).

Thanks for the information.  My country of citizenship has a special issuance of photographic ID that they give you when registering.  You bring it to the polls with you and they cross verify it with the ID number that they have on the voter's roster.  If you leave it home, you can bring a passport + driver's licence to compensate.  Years ago, you used to be able to bring two witnesses to verify your identity if you only had one piece of state issued ID, but I think that they stopped that a little while back...

I have always found the American apprehension to voter ID the weirdest thing about their politics...

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Gerrymandering is neither "modern" nor unipartisan.    It's named after Elbridge Gerry, one of our founding fathers, for a reason.  It's been around for about as long as our nation has been around, eagerly practiced by both parties.

And it was critiqued back then just as much as it is now. 

 

Does this photo depict eageneress about the process to you?

 

96CC756D-FBC4-4158-8697-537876796DB1.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

And it was critiqued back then just as much as it is now. 

 

Does this photo depict eageneress about the process to you?

 

96CC756D-FBC4-4158-8697-537876796DB1.jpeg

You have reached the incorrect premise that I was defending gerrymandering.  I was not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CPE said:

I have always found the American apprehension to voter ID the weirdest thing about their politics...

and I'll tag @Conservative Elector 2

The apprehension would be eliminated if there was a federal voting ID and a simple application process. The issue is that some states don't make it easy to get an ID if you don't have one, lost one, were homeless, don't have a permanent residence (even if you only live in the state, etc.). I remember one of my couldn't get ID for almost a year because he didn't have an ID to get ID. The other issue people have with the voter ID situation is that it is politically motivated. The ID law is said to suppress primarily voters who would vote Democrat. This causes a question in the motivation for voter ID laws. 

I think the best thing one could do in any situation in which something seems weird or not straightforward is to find some sort of compromise. As such, I'd propose the following: 

1) All US citizens and residents who are eligible to vote will be mailed a Federal Voting ID, which ideally will come with automatic registration and a way to automatically update a change of state residence, but let's just stick with having an ID. 

2) This Federal Voting ID must be shown when voting. In the event that the voting ID is lost or missing, a provisional ballot can be filled out until voting legitimacy can be verified.

3) For mail-in ballots the Voter ID # would be written down with the name. 

4) If an in-state resident hasn't a permanent address in the state, then there will be some other sort of alternate application to prove that one lives in the state but is quasi-transient for economic, parental abuse, etc., reasons. 

I think this is a compromise that enacts the law, security, and fairness. It bypasses any state's attempt, whether Blue or Red state, to suppress any demographics vote, whether based on their political ideology, race, income, etc. 

To me this is just a simple and common sense solution.

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

And it was critiqued back then just as much as it is now. 

 

Does this photo depict eageneress about the process to you?

 

96CC756D-FBC4-4158-8697-537876796DB1.jpeg

I have ancestors born in Marblehead, Salem, Wenham, Ipswich, Rowley, Newbury, Newburyport, Haverhill, Salisbury, and I think Amesbury as well. During the time that this Gerrymandering occurred, I would have had them only in Newbury, Newburyport, and Ipswich. My great-grandmother was my last Massachusetts ancestor. She was born in Ipswich, but raised in Newton just outside Boston. I wonder what my ancestor's though of Gerry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2020 at 2:04 PM, vcczar said:

and I'll tag @Conservative Elector 2

The apprehension would be eliminated if there was a federal voting ID and a simple application process. The issue is that some states don't make it easy to get an ID if you don't have one, lost one, were homeless, don't have a permanent residence (even if you only live in the state, etc.). I remember one of my couldn't get ID for almost a year because he didn't have an ID to get ID. The other issue people have with the voter ID situation is that it is politically motivated. The ID law is said to suppress primarily voters who would vote Democrat. This causes a question in the motivation for voter ID laws. 

I think the best thing one could do in any situation in which something seems weird or not straightforward is to find some sort of compromise. As such, I'd propose the following: 

1) All US citizens and residents who are eligible to vote will be mailed a Federal Voting ID, which ideally will come with automatic registration and a way to automatically update a change of state residence, but let's just stick with having an ID. 

2) This Federal Voting ID must be shown when voting. In the event that the voting ID is lost or missing, a provisional ballot can be filled out until voting legitimacy can be verified.

3) For mail-in ballots the Voter ID # would be written down with the name. 

4) If an in-state resident hasn't a permanent address in the state, then there will be some other sort of alternate application to prove that one lives in the state but is quasi-transient for economic, parental abuse, etc., reasons. 

I think this is a compromise that enacts the law, security, and fairness. It bypasses any state's attempt, whether Blue or Red state, to suppress any demographics vote, whether based on their political ideology, race, income, etc. 

To me this is just a simple and common sense solution.

Yeah, you receive one when you register in my country of citizenship.  Another big difference is that most people have a passport as well; I remember reading one time that like 60% (I think) of American's never leave the country, so they obviously don't need it, which is very strange in comparison.  

I like the idea for sure, not sure how it would mesh in with most voting procedures being determined at the state level, but it does make a lot of sense.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 3:34 PM, vcczar said:

I think a lot of these really depend on intention. I don't think Voter ID is such a terrible thing personally. I'd personally make sure that voters have a basic understanding of govt. before allowing them to vote. (basically just pass a citizenship test which most americans can't do https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/most-us-would-fail-u-s-citizenship-test-survey-finds-n918961)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...