California strong arm

[Shiranui117]

A popular vote equals less disenfranchised compared to the electoral college. It is known.

"It is known"? By who? Who came up with this notion? And why would a popular vote be better than keeping the electoral college but getting rid of the winner-take-all rules and making every state a split-delegate state like how Nebraska and Maine are set up?

 

[Woberts]

"It is known"? By who? Who came up with this notion?

It is known.

And why would a popular vote be better than keeping the electoral college but getting rid of the winner-take-all rules and making every state a split-delegate state like how Nebraska and Maine are set up?

Because those are unnecessary complications.

 

[Shiranui117]

It is known.
Because those are unnecessary complications.

At this point I'm going to assume you're just being snarky and my sarcasm meter is broken. On the off chance that you're serious, please explain why you disagree with me.

 

[Enoch07]

A popular vote equals less disenfranchised compared to the electoral college. It is known.

I'm all for doing away with electoral college. Just need to make a system where people can vote only once per campaign.

Can't have the Democrats moving around bus loads of illegal immigrants to vote, and oh yeah let's not forget those corpses that vote Democrat for some odd reason.

 

[dianaiad]

Really.

How Voter ID Laws Discriminate Against Racial Minorities

Read the article. It's vague, and claims THAT there is such an effect, but there is absolutely no hint of 'how.'

That's a really important question, you know, the 'how.' One must ask how and why such laws would so discriminate when, in fact, there is no difference between the number of 'people of color' who have ID acceptable for voting (like a driver's license, state ID, passport, or whatever is required to obtain other government services) and 'white people.'

If the reason, for instance, is that those who are not actually citizens are no longer able to vote because of the ID law, I wouldn't call that a problem. If the reason is that those who are not eligible to vote because of felony convictions, or whatever, because of the ID law, that's not a problem either.

If the problem is that those who have ID's but don't want to show them to precinct workers because of some sense of fear...that's not the problem of the ID law. That must be addressed another way, and is, of course, rather stupid.

If the problem is that people of color find it difficult to get to precincts to vote, that's not a problem of the ID laws...and can be fixed with 'vote by mail.' My parents haven't voted in person for many years.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371False. [/quote]

Absolutely true. Unless they live so far 'off the grid' that nobody can find them with three satellites, forty drones equipped with infra-red cameras and three psychics, People require some form of ID just in order to live here. The banks do. Paycheck loan places do. The IRS does. Any liquor store does. Wanna pay for something with a bill larger than a twenty? Produce ID. Want ANY government aid of any kind? Produce ID. Victims of human trafficking? They have bigger problems than a lack of ID, and the police had better fix that. If folks want gov. aid or the smallest ability to buy stuff here, they WILL get, and have, ID. So...produce it at the polls. If they don't, it's not because they can't GET ID.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]False. You live in evil socialist California, remember? Hint: other states make it harder than we do.[/quote]

California makes getting a driver's license incredibly easy. Anybody can get one, even ill...er, undocumented workers. It's why California driver's licenses aren't considered 'good enough' ID for the feds. However, voter ID is a state matter, and they'll be good enough for that, darn it.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]The evidence indicates otherwise.[/quote]

WHAT evidence? I read that article. I didn't see anything but weasel words, and unlike the title, it absolutely does not address the 'why' or the 'how.' In fact, even they had to admit that they didn't have enough good data to figure out 'that,' very well, considering the problems of elections and which elections they were examining.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]LOL. No. Genuinely losing an election because your team simply has fewer voters is not "disenfranchisement." It's losing, fair and square. [/quote]

I addressed that, and someone else addressed it as well, with very similar points.

Y'know what, though?

From the history of 'my people,' (Mormons...hang in there with me here):

One of the big problems with the early Mormons in New York, Illinois and Missouri was that there were so many of them. In other words, a whole bunch of converts up and moved to be with Joseph Smith and the other new converts. When they got to their new place, they built things. Cities. Nauvoo, Illinois, was the third biggest city in the USA, next only to New York and that new upstart town, Chicago. Their non-Mormon slave holder neighbors did NOT like this. The Mormons sort of outvoted everybody, and their neighbors were scared silly that said Mormons, who were mostly abolitionists, would mess things up. This caused a considerable amount of dissension, and to this day, when I talk to people about this, the argument is that the Mormons got what was coming to them because they DID outvote all the other people in the area, and screwed up the politics. It was then, and is now, not considered a 'good thing' for one large group of people with a homogenious POV to outvote (take over) the entire territory and everybody who lived there. An electoral college might have saved a bunch of trouble...and lives.

Well, those who had been disenfranchised by the Mormons (and they were...absolutely; when you have a group that has a population three to four times that of the locals, those locals' votes simply aren't going to count for much in a direct democracy, are they?) decided that this was not a good thing. So...they killed people, got Missouri Executive Order 44 declared (and Governor Boggs, who signed it, called it the Extermination Order. We didn't ...you might want to look it up just for kicks and giggles) and the Mormons thrown all the way out of the USA. It wasn't pretty.

And it is still being justified because of the political problems of the Mormons out voting the locals. Don't believe me? Ask the evangelicals who claim that 'religious persecution' had nothing to do with it.

well, I'll acknowledge readily that the political problems of being outvoted had a LOT to 'do with it."

The point is the irony of those who would be on the 'winning' side without an electoral college using the problems of being without one as an excuse for the actions of Missourians way back when, and I find that happening all the time.

Not that you have. You probably have no idea what I"m talking about with this bit of history. However, when you look at it, think about it. That IS what happens in a direct democracy, and what WOULD happen if the electoral college were abolished. People who are disenfranchised do not take it well.



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]You can make this argument to dispute the results of virtually any democratic election, local, state, or national. Why should the people in the heavily populated part of town get "so much say" over what happens to the people in the less populated part of town?

The reality of life is that there are some places where lots of people live, and some places where not very many people live. Therefore, in fair democratic elections, the places where lots of people live are going to have lots more voters. That is completely unbiased and fair. Every vote carries equal weight, regardless of your address. That is the opposite of what we have now, where the voters in small/sparsely populated states are given disproportionately more weight in deciding who wins the presidency. It is irrational, unfair, and undemocratic.[/quote]

Uh huh.

So....you have the folks who live in three quarters of the USA whose votes simply do not count in a presidential election, and you are OK with that?

That's not "equal weight." Not even close.

And please note; the electoral college only steps in for the presidency. Senators and Representatives are elected directly, remember?



[QUOTE="Left Coast, post: 6092145, member: 66371]Then that is your choice to make. I don't think most people, given the choice, would want their vote to be disenfranchised.[/QUOTE]

No, I don't want that. The difference is that MY vote, in state and federal elections, doesn't count didley squat--not since Reagan, anyway. But my political opinions ARE my choice. I just do not want to see 3/4 of the USA being totally run by stupid people on the coasts.

So for me, the electoral college is a good thing.

 

[dianaiad]

I'm all for doing away with electoral college. Just need to make a system where people can vote only once per campaign.

Can't have the Democrats moving around bus loads of illegal immigrants to vote, and oh yeah let's not forget those corpses that vote Democrat for some odd reason.

Oh, my, yes. The cemetery vote can be extremely important in certain elections, as are the ones who wear t-shirts with "vote early, vote often" logos....

 

[Left Coast]

You can apply for a passport online or at your local post office,

Which costs money, which poor people often do not have.

and you can also fill out an application for a driver's license online.

Poor people who cannot afford a car/gas money have no motivation to obtain a driver's license.

It's not hard at all to get a photo ID.

That depends entirely on the state you're in and what kind of ID you're talking about.

The BMV is in the next town over and you don't have a car? You probably have a friend or family member who does and wouldn't mind driving you for the price of gas or in exchange for a couple beers or for the price of catching up.

That would be nice, but isn't the reality for many people.

They don't lack the ability to get a photo ID, which most banks require for the purposes of identity verification anyway.

There are a surprising number of people who don't have a bank account.

The danger in this is that people who live in urban communities have a fundamentally different way of life than those in rural communities. If only people in urban communities are having their voices heard in presidential elections, then nationwide laws will be passed that work just fine in the cities, but would be absolutely disastrous in rural communities where many of the goods that our country needs to survive are produced. For example, strict laws on gun ownership are common sense in the city, but in rural areas where the police may be 5-10 minutes away or more, not having a gun in your house in case of a home invasion can get you killed.

Again, you can make this argument against virtually any democratic election, local, state, or national. Why should the people in the urban parts of town have a voice over what laws govern people in the rural parts of town?
As has already been pointed out, we're only talking about the Presidency here. People in rural areas/states can still elect folks from their parts of the country to Congress or to state and local elected offices, and they do so in every election.
The "solution" proposed by an electoral college system merely reverses this perceived injustice into an actual one by giving voters in rural parts of the country an out-sized voice in who we elect President, to the point that a President can actually earn fewer total votes nationally and still win the Presidency. No sane democratic system of government operates like that.

It's important that every constituency in this country have a voice and representation at the highest levels of government, especially when electing the President. A national popular vote with no respect to how people vote in different states and regions will inevitably disenfranchise most of middle America.

Again, this is an equivocation with the word "disenfranchise." By this logic, Libertarian and Green Party folks are the most "disenfranchised" of all! What about the poor Communists??
Losing an election because legitimately fewer people want your guy elected is not "disenfranchisement." It's defeat, fair and square.

 

[Left Coast]

Read the article.

Read the research paper that the article references and links to.

It's vague, and claims THAT there is such an effect, but there is absolutely no hint of 'how.'

In general it comes down to money. Racial minorities (black and Latino/a people specifically) are poorer on average than white people. Therefore things that cost money disproportionately affect them. You can read a summary of more of the "why" here: Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet

...when, in fact, there is no difference between the number of 'people of color' who have ID acceptable for voting (like a driver's license, state ID, passport, or whatever is required to obtain other government services) and 'white people.'

Again, simply factually wrong. See the ACLU page I linked above.

If the reason, for instance, is that those who are not actually citizens are no longer able to vote because of the ID law, I wouldn't call that a problem.

Actual voter fraud of that type is extraordinarily rare already, even without these laws.

If the reason is that those who are not eligible to vote because of felony convictions, or whatever, because of the ID law, that's not a problem either.

You and I just disagree at a philosophical level there. I think voting should be considered an inalienable right, even if you've been convicted of a crime.

If the problem is that those who have ID's but don't want to show them to precinct workers because of some sense of fear...that's not the problem of the ID law. That must be addressed another way, and is, of course, rather stupid.

I agree that we need to do more to repair the relationship between communities of color and law enforcement/the legal system. Until that happens, though, laws put into effect that are known to have such an impact are unacceptable.

If the problem is that people of color find it difficult to get to precincts to vote, that's not a problem of the ID laws...and can be fixed with 'vote by mail.' My parents haven't voted in person for many years.

I agree, though a number of state require people to obtain an excuse for why they can't vote in person. There's also the problem of folks with no mailing address.

Absolutely true. Unless they live so far 'off the grid' that nobody can find them with three satellites, forty drones equipped with infra-red cameras and three psychics, People require some form of ID just in order to live here. The banks do. Paycheck loan places do. The IRS does. Any liquor store does. Wanna pay for something with a bill larger than a twenty? Produce ID. Want ANY government aid of any kind? Produce ID. Victims of human trafficking? They have bigger problems than a lack of ID, and the police had better fix that. If folks want gov. aid or the smallest ability to buy stuff here, they WILL get, and have, ID. So...produce it at the polls. If they don't, it's not because they can't GET ID.

The question is the TYPE of ID required by specific laws, in addition to things like proof of residence. This was widely reported a few years ago for example with Wisconsin's newly implemented ID law.

WHAT evidence? I read that article. I didn't see anything but weasel words, and unlike the title, it absolutely does not address the 'why' or the 'how.'

Then you didn't read it carefully: "Using this refined methodology, researchers found that strict ID laws doubled the turnout gap between whites and Latinos in the general elections, and almost doubled the white-black turnout gap in primary elections."

The effect exists whether you understand the "why" (explained above) or not.

Y'know what, though?

From the history of 'my people,' (Mormons...hang in there with me here):

One of the big problems with the early Mormons in New York, Illinois and Missouri was that there were so many of them. In other words, a whole bunch of converts up and moved to be with Joseph Smith and the other new converts. When they got to their new place, they built things. Cities. Nauvoo, Illinois, was the third biggest city in the USA, next only to New York and that new upstart town, Chicago. Their non-Mormon slave holder neighbors did NOT like this. The Mormons sort of outvoted everybody, and their neighbors were scared silly that said Mormons, who were mostly abolitionists, would mess things up. This caused a considerable amount of dissension, and to this day, when I talk to people about this, the argument is that the Mormons got what was coming to them because they DID outvote all the other people in the area, and screwed up the politics. It was then, and is now, not considered a 'good thing' for one large group of people with a homogenious POV to outvote (take over) the entire territory and everybody who lived there. An electoral college might have saved a bunch of trouble...and lives.

So you're...siding with the slave holders, against the members of your own religion?

Well, those who had been disenfranchised by the Mormons (and they were...absolutely; when you have a group that has a population three to four times that of the locals, those locals' votes simply aren't going to count for much in a direct democracy, are they?) decided that this was not a good thing. So...they killed people, got Missouri Executive Order 44 declared (and Governor Boggs, who signed it, called it the Extermination Order. We didn't ...you might want to look it up just for kicks and giggles) and the Mormons thrown all the way out of the USA. It wasn't pretty.

So wait a minute. When voter ID laws cause all kinds of collateral damage outlined earlier in our conversation, you make the excuses that, "well, that's not a problem with the law, that can be solved with x," and, "that's not a problem with the law, that's just them being stupid and should be solved another way," etc.
But when confronted with a situation where people LITERALLY KILLED THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS because they didn't like the ways Mormons uprooted the political system under direct democracy...you blame the law?? You recognize the massive double standard you're employing, yes?

Not that you have. You probably have no idea what I"m talking about with this bit of history. However, when you look at it, think about it. That IS what happens in a direct democracy, and what WOULD happen if the electoral college were abolished. People who are disenfranchised do not take it well.

Once again, that is equivocation. Being outvoted because you are legitimately a minority is not "disenfranchisement."

So....you have the folks who live in three quarters of the USA whose votes simply do not count in a presidential election, and you are OK with that?

Their votes do count. Exactly as much as yours and mine do. One person, one vote. I don't know how much simpler to put this, the logic is inescapable.

That's not "equal weight." Not even close.

It literally is, by definition.

And please note; the electoral college only steps in for the presidency. Senators and Representatives are elected directly, remember?

Yes, I remember. I also remember that Senators weren't always directly elected. We even had to do a little something about our Constitution to make that happen.

 

[Shad]

No, it actually doesn’t. Don’t mistake voting rights for the right to be on the ballot. There very different criteria for who can vote vs who gets to be on the ballot.

It is tied to voting rights.

A restriction is judged based on case to case. This idea can be tossed out by the courts.

We concluded in Zeilenga that the right to hold office was a fundamental right and that restrictions upon its exercise must, therefore, be strictly scrutinized.2 Indeed, we declared in effect that the right to be a candidate for public office was inextricably intertwined with the right to vote and equally as fundamental. We said: “(T)he right to vote would be empty indeed if it did not include the right of choice for whom to vote. . . . But it does mean that in judging the validity of a restraint upon eligibility for elective office, we must be mindful that the restraint is upon the right to vote as well. . . . Far from being unrestricted, the power to prescribe qualifications for elective office is sharply limited by the constitutional guaranty of a right to vote. . . .” (Zeilenga v. Nelson, Supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 721, 94 Cal.Rptr. at p. 605, 484 P.2d at p. 581, quoting Gangemi v. Rosengard (N.J.) 44 N.J. 166, 207 A.2d 665, 667); . . . (T)he right to run for public office is as fundamental a right as is the right to vote . . ..' (Zeilenga v. Nelson, Supra, 4 Cal.3d at p. 723, 94 Cal.Rptr. at p. 606, 484 P.2d at p. 582.)

FindLaw's Supreme Court of California case and opinions.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

(all are separate links)

Removing people from ballots for political reasons is one of the reasons for the Civil War which saw both North and South remove candidates by the political elite in a given area. Trump can challenge it and get a hold during the election.

 

[dianaiad]

...............

Then you didn't read it carefully: "Using this refined methodology, researchers found that strict ID laws doubled the turnout gap between whites and Latinos in the general elections, and almost doubled the white-black turnout gap in primary elections."

The effect exists whether you understand the "why" (explained above) or not.

What did I write?

I WROTE that the article (albeit with very shaky data) claimed that the phenomenon exists, but does not address the why or how. THAT is what needs to be addressed. Voter ID is, I think, important. Very important. For instance, while I 'voted by mail.' my brother did not. HE wanted to vote personally, only to find out that someone had voted in his place, signing his name and everything. He, of course, had no idea how that other person voted, but if there had been some form of effective voter ID law, it would have been far more difficult for anybody to do that. As a former precinct worker myself, I know exactly how easy it is for anybody at all to come in and claim to be this person or that one, sign on the line and vote...and nobody can stop it. When the real owner of that vote shows up, HE is the one who is treated with suspicion, having to do a 'provisional' ballot that, frankly, won't ever be looked at, much less counted. That's in California.

...and voter ID laws are state issues, not federal ones.

If voter ID laws place unfair advantages upon 'people of color' (and I don't believe that for a second, actually...any disadvantage would have to be economic and educational, not race based. If it were not, then wealthy black people would be equally disadvantaged in this area, and they are clearly not), then the 'HOW,' and the WHY are considerably more important than "THAT," and the solution is to fix the how and why, not to throw out the ID laws.

That's really silly, actually....like throwing out laws against shoplifting because it penalizes kleptomaniacs more than other people. The solution is to help the group (get the kleptos into counseling), not to throw out the laws.

So you're...siding with the slave holders, against the members of your own religion?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who, on one hand, justify what was done TO the Mormons because they had the effrontery to outvote the locals, while at the same time advocating getting rid of the electoral college now. I can't tell you just how many people I have spoken to have done just that. Very situational ethics and political stands. Whatever supports the personal goal is perfectly OK.

This has nothing to do with slavery, except the amazing turnaround some people have of calling US 'racist,' compared to the groups they support.

Oh, and I'm also pointing out that when a group of people feels 'disenfranchised,' they tend to get obstreperous. It's why the USA is the USA, not a colony of England.

So wait a minute. When voter ID laws cause all kinds of collateral damage outlined earlier in our conversation, you make the excuses that, "well, that's not a problem with the law, that can be solved with x," and, "that's not a problem with the law, that's just them being stupid and should be solved another way," etc.

yes.

One does not solve the problem of, say, dog fights by making cock fights illegal. One does not solve the problem of shoplifting by making it legal to steal anything that costs less than $5.00, and one does not solve the problem of the air conditioner breaking down by turning on the furnace. If someone has problems getting an ID, then make it easier for them to get an ID.

But when confronted with a situation where people LITERALLY KILLED THEIR POLITICAL OPPONENTS because they didn't like the ways Mormons uprooted the political system under direct democracy...you blame the law?? You recognize the massive double standard you're employing, yes?

No. I'm pointing out the double standard being employed among many of the opponents I have spoke with over this issue. They JUSTIFY the treatment the Mormons received BECAUSE they claim that those Mormons had no right to overwhelm the local elections by their population, while at the same time wanting to get rid of the electoral college so that some group, narrowly defined by geography and ideology, can overwhelm the rest of the nation. I'm not in support of the slaveowners. I'm LDS (a "Mormon") I'm on the "Mormon" side of this issue...but an 'electoral college' of sorts might have saved a lot of lives back then, as it ensures equal representation among groups, cultures and ideologies now.

Once again, that is equivocation. Being outvoted because you are legitimately a minority is not "disenfranchisement."

Uh Huh. That isn't what the constitution is about, is it? The Bill of rights, and indeed, though we struggle with it, the whole idea is the protection of minorities. You might want to look up Mills, and de Toqueville, and something called 'the tyranny of the majority." That is PRECISELY what the electoral college prevents.

Their votes do count. Exactly as much as yours and mine do. One person, one vote. I don't know how much simpler to put this, the logic is inescapable.

If you think that the votes of a bunch of farmers in Iowa count as much as the votes of the folks in LA....even when the issue is about those farmers in Iowa, you need to rethink.

It literally is, by definition.


Yes, I remember. I also remember that Senators weren't always directly elected. We even had to do a little something about our Constitution to make that happen.

Nice deflection. They ARE directly elected now, though, are they not? In fact, the separation of powers and the electoral college is part of that designed prevention of the 'tyranny of the majority' which is so important to our system. Minorities are NOT given equal treatment. As a liberal, that should be one of the number one talking points for you.

The idea is to see to it that they ARE represented.

....and the folks in 'fly over country,' without the electoral college, would not be represented in a presidential election. They are represented proportionally in the numbers of representatives sent to congress. Each state gets two senators. The electoral college sees to it that 'fly over country' needs to be landed in and the people there actually considered...whereas, getting rid of the electoral college would mean that all presidential campaigns would take place only on the coasts.

Nobody would care what the folks in the middle thought, because, well....no matter how they voted, their votes wouldn't count. At all.

 

[Shiranui117]

Which costs money, which poor people often do not have.

Poor people who cannot afford a car/gas money have no motivation to obtain a driver's license.

They can at least apply for a passport. It's possible to either budget your money or receive financial support from public welfare or private charities.

That depends entirely on the state you're in and what kind of ID you're talking about.

I've already named driver's license and passport as two possible photo ID's which are universally accepted across all 50 states. Many states accept other forms of identification that wouldn't be that expensive to get.

That would be nice, but isn't the reality for many people.

Again, you can make this argument against virtually any democratic election, local, state, or national. Why should the people in the urban parts of town have a voice over what laws govern people in the rural parts of town?

If you're rural, you're not a "part of town" anymore. You're a separate town altogether with a completely different set of local politicians. That's the point of local government: You have local politicians who are concerned with the livelihood and public welfare of people in your immediate vicinity. And state governments have elected officials from all different regions of the state, so everybody has their voice represented.

As has already been pointed out, we're only talking about the Presidency here. People in rural areas/states can still elect folks from their parts of the country to Congress or to state and local elected offices, and they do so in every election.
The "solution" proposed by an electoral college system merely reverses this perceived injustice into an actual one by giving voters in rural parts of the country an out-sized voice in who we elect President, to the point that a President can actually earn fewer total votes nationally and still win the Presidency. No sane democratic system of government operates like that.

By popular vote, Clinton won, sure. The popular vote has screwed conservatives and liberals about equally--3 times the vote has gone in favor of conservatives (Bush, Trump, Harrison), 2 times in favor of liberals (Adams and Hayes). Before this latest election, the tally was even on either side. The system that we have works evenly to the advantage and disadvantage of both parties. The difference is, the conservatives didn't try to have the electoral college abolished after they lost. The Democrats have tried 3 times so far--once after Nixon got elected, once after Bush got elected the second time, and again after Trump got elected.

 

[FragrantGrace]

California lawmakers renew bid to get presidential candidates' tax returns

California refuses to allow Trump on its ballot unless he releases his tax returns.

Sounds to me like California is ready to give up its electoral college votes. I'm fine with that.

Smells like Nancy Pelosi's stomping ground is doing her bidding again.
There's no law that requires a candidate to release their tax returns. It has always been voluntary and in practice since the 1970's.

Whereas this effort, now supposedly being pursued by 20 states, is illegal under 18 USC 241. It is called, voter suppression.
Ideally, those involved in this effort who hold office, and you know they're all Democrats, should be impeached out of office for the criminality they're undertaking in this effort.
There is no law that requires release of a tax return. Any effort to make that law come into effect is violation of privacy and is also illegal.

It does show how corrupt the Democrats are however. And that is not a surprising thing but it is a good thing that they're this bold so as to make news of it for themselves.
Shows how scared they are of Trump having another 4 years to do good for America. When the Democrats planned its further destruction and security compromise with Obama and to continue under Hillary.

I know why some people rightly label the party, Demoncrats.
It identifies them perfectly.

 

[Left Coast]

What did I write?

I WROTE that the article (albeit with very shaky data) claimed that the phenomenon exists, but does not address the why or how. THAT is what needs to be addressed.

Which I did address. Yet oddly you haven't commented on it. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you go back and comment on it once you've read it.

Voter ID is, I think, important. Very important. For instance, while I 'voted by mail.' my brother did not. HE wanted to vote personally, only to find out that someone had voted in his place, signing his name and everything. He, of course, had no idea how that other person voted, but if there had been some form of effective voter ID law, it would have been far more difficult for anybody to do that. As a former precinct worker myself, I know exactly how easy it is for anybody at all to come in and claim to be this person or that one, sign on the line and vote...and nobody can stop it. When the real owner of that vote shows up, HE is the one who is treated with suspicion, having to do a 'provisional' ballot that, frankly, won't ever be looked at, much less counted. That's in California.

Again, I already addressed this. Actual voter fraud is exceedingly rare, as has been demonstrated more than once in studies of the issue. Anecdotes to the contrary are emotionally powerful but they don't overturn the overall picture.

If voter ID laws place unfair advantages upon 'people of color' (and I don't believe that for a second, actually...any disadvantage would have to be economic and educational, not race based.

*Facepalm*

Just...no.

You're aware that people of color are poorer and less educated on average than whites in this country, yes? Which means if a law disadvantages people who are poor and less educated then therefore it is going to disproportionately disadvantage people of color.

Which is what I said from square one.

That's really silly, actually....like throwing out laws against shoplifting because it penalizes kleptomaniacs more than other people.

Except that poverty and lack of education aren't crimes, but yea, small details.

The solution is to help the group (get the kleptos into counseling), not to throw out the laws.

I eagerly await your threads supporting an increase to the minimum wage and tuition free college. Glad we're finally on the same page!

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who, on one hand, justify what was done TO the Mormons because they had the effrontery to outvote the locals, while at the same time advocating getting rid of the electoral college now. I can't tell you just how many people I have spoken to have done just that.

I would love to meet these masses of Americans who oppose the electoral college but support murdering your political opponents.

One does not solve the problem of, say, dog fights by making cock fights illegal. One does not solve the problem of shoplifting by making it legal to steal anything that costs less than $5.00, and one does not solve the problem of the air conditioner breaking down by turning on the furnace. If someone has problems getting an ID, then make it easier for them to get an ID.

Apples and oranges. If a law creates a larger problem than it solves, then absolutely the law should be changed.

No. I'm pointing out the double standard being employed among many of the opponents I have spoke with over this issue. They JUSTIFY the treatment the Mormons received BECAUSE they claim that those Mormons had no right to overwhelm the local elections by their population

Again, I want to know who these people are who believe murdering political opponents is moral. Needless to say, I'm not one of them.

while at the same time wanting to get rid of the electoral college so that some group, narrowly defined by geography and ideology

Also defined as: most of the people who live in the country.

I'm not in support of the slaveowners. I'm LDS (a "Mormon") I'm on the "Mormon" side of this issue...but an 'electoral college' of sorts might have saved a lot of lives back then, as it ensures equal representation among groups, cultures and ideologies now.

Again, the inconsistency here is glaring. You make excuses for voter ID laws that have known unjust consequences (indeed, conservative lawmakers KNOW these consequences exist and therefore advocate for these laws as a political strategy) and say the issue isn't the law.

Yet when discussing direct democracy, you warn that we shouldn't do it because people might literally murder their political opponents, even as you seem to have no problem with directly electing your mayor, your County Supervisor, your governor, or your Congresspeople, even though the logic you're using could just as easily be used against those elections.

Uh Huh. That isn't what the constitution is about, is it? The Bill of rights, and indeed, though we struggle with it, the whole idea is the protection of minorities. You might want to look up Mills, and de Toqueville, and something called 'the tyranny of the majority." That is PRECISELY what the electoral college prevents.

We can protect the rights of minorities without our electoral college system. See: every other constitutional democracy.

If you think that the votes of a bunch of farmers in Iowa count as much as the votes of the folks in LA....even when the issue is about those farmers in Iowa, you need to rethink.

Again, I don't know how much more clearly to explain this to you. In a popular vote, your address is irrelevant. Every person gets one vote, period. In an electoral college system, the votes of people in rural small states are disproportionately weighted to have an outsized effect on the election. Which means a candidate can literally earn fewer votes overall and still become President (the only reason our last two GOP Presidents were able to take office). That is a manifestly absurd and unjust system.

Nice deflection.

Huh? You brought up direct election of Senators, not me.

They ARE directly elected now, though, are they not?

Yes. And I can literally use exactly the same logic you're using to argue for why they shouldn't be. Yet you're touting direct election of Senators as a good thing. Again, the inconsistencies in your worldview are glaring.

In fact, the separation of powers and the electoral college is part of that designed prevention of the 'tyranny of the majority' which is so important to our system. Minorities are NOT given equal treatment. As a liberal, that should be one of the number one talking points for you.

Why don't you leave the liberal talking points to me, I've got them covered thanks.

....and the folks in 'fly over country,' without the electoral college, would not be represented in a presidential election.

Again, simply false. I've explained this logic to you multiple times now, don't know how else to go about it.

whereas, getting rid of the electoral college would mean that all presidential campaigns would take place only on the coasts.

Ie, where most voters actually live. The horror!

Nobody would care what the folks in the middle thought, because, well....no matter how they voted, their votes wouldn't count. At all.

Again, not true. Their votes count exactly as much as yours and mine. One person, one vote.

 

[FragrantGrace]

I miss the days of moderates. They are almost extinct at this point. Heck Biden is an alr right white supremacist fascist for some far lefties. I've taken a screenshot of a tweet. I did censor one of the cuss words next to @ Joe Biden.

View attachment 28777

The one thing politicians count on as a whole is the short term memories of their electorate.

Bidden is a racist. Always has been. His record shows this. Now, because there's a new thought process out there and the virus of PC has spread across the land, he clads it in mock language so as to mask that truth.

If his racist history doesn't tank his chances of being on the Blue side of the ballot come 2020, prayerfully his collusion with his son Hunter and the Burisma scandal, one of many, when Biden was VP will.

 

[FragrantGrace]

 

[FragrantGrace]

Radical Left
Joe Biden and the Battle for the Soul of America
By:Wesley Smith

"...
Here is what is shocking the conscience of the American people. This is where the lines are drawn in the Battle for the Soul of America.

We have moved from the concept of “safe, legal and rare” regarding abortion to late-term abortions, even to the time of full-term delivery, which is nothing more than infanticide. And the progressives in our country state they are not at all troubled by this. Joe Biden, for example, has moved from his stated opinion in 1974 that a woman should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body,” to his statement in 2012 that the government doesn’t have “a right to tell other people that women, they can’t control their body.” Never mind that it is not only her body, but also the body of a child. Only a few years ago it would have been shocking to hear that leading politicians would end the life of a child right after delivery, if the mother so chose. But that is the stance of many people on the Left today. That truly is a battle for the soul of our country.

The battle for our collective soul is also joined on the issue of the insidious influence of socialism in America. Without shock or shame, many candidates on the Left vigorously promote concepts that a generation ago would have been an insult to the consciences of people who had watched socialism, and its fraternal twin communism, wreak havoc in the world and cause the deaths of untold millions. A few years ago, the idea that individual liberty would be subservient to government control of healthcare and other aspects of a person’s life would have been rejected out of hand. Only a short time back, a presidential candidate who decried success and called for the blanket redistribution of wealth would have been perceived as un-American. A person who called for guaranteed income even for those “unwilling” to work and simply printing more money to pay for free college educations and an elimination of the gas and oil industry could never have even been elected to Congress—let alone become the darling of the mainstream media and left-leaning elected leaders. "

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm all for doing away with electoral college. Just need to make a system where people can vote only once per campaign.

Can't have the Democrats moving around bus loads of illegal immigrants to vote, and oh yeah let's not forget those corpses that vote Democrat for some odd reason.

I used to think that myself until Trump won by the electoral college. That's when I realised the vast majority of the states are Republican/Conservative with the Socialists holed up in a few city states.

If the Electoral College was abolished, then the Democrat socialists would rule from only a few States leaving out the majority of Republican /Conservative states without any say in the federation.


I'm a huge proponent of states rights, and I realize the importance of why the founding fathers instituted it. That's why I changed my mind over the electoral college.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Smells like Nancy Pelosi's stomping ground is doing her bidding again.
There's no law that requires a candidate to release their tax returns. It has always been voluntary and in practice since the 1970's.

Whereas this effort, now supposedly being pursued by 20 states, is illegal under 18 USC 241. It is called, voter suppression.
Ideally, those involved in this effort who hold office, and you know they're all Democrats, should be impeached out of office for the criminality they're undertaking in this effort.
There is no law that requires release of a tax return. Any effort to make that law come into effect is violation of privacy and is also illegal.

It does show how corrupt the Democrats are however. And that is not a surprising thing but it is a good thing that they're this bold so as to make news of it for themselves.
Shows how scared they are of Trump having another 4 years to do good for America. When the Democrats planned its further destruction and security compromise with Obama and to continue under Hillary.

I know why some people rightly label the party, Demoncrats.
It identifies them perfectly.

Their whole goal ultimately is destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and creating a centralized base of political power and control through the creation of mass dependency and entitlements.

These people definitely are not Blue Dog Democrats. That's for sure.

 

[FragrantGrace]

Their whole goal ultimately is destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and creating a centralized base of political power and control through the creation of mass dependency and entitlements.

These people definitely are not Blue Dog Democrats. That's for sure.

The Democrat party has always been of that mind. Now they're just accelerating their agenda because they have their base hypnotized into believing the nanny state represents correction of everything the Democrats have been party to creating thus far.

Have you heard Warren's plan for ending student debt? Her plan would cost $1.25 TRILLION dollars over a ten year period. The irony she doesn't realize is, she thinks this plan will wipe out student debt while making the debt/deficit of America compound itself.
And what about those students who already paid off their student loans? Do they get some consideration?

She's one of those idiots that champions the words, privilege. And ridicules those who have "too much power". Oh, I dunno, too much power? Like, um, the Congress?

 

[dianaiad]

Which I did address. Yet oddly you haven't commented on it. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you go back and comment on it once you've read it.

No. You didn't. You simply repeated what the article said. You repeated THAT it seems that ID laws cause a discrepancy in the vote, but not how or why.

If they do, then the thing to do is find out why they do, and fix that.

If the 'why,' is because there is a disproportionate number of 'people of color' who have no business voting...because they are not, in fact, citizens, that's not a problem with ID laws. That's a success.

Now I don't figure that there are that many 'people of color' who are attempting to vote illegally, and who are deterred by ID laws. Some are, of course....but then so are 'white' people who are deterred from voting because ID laws would find out that they are here illegally.

There are other reasons for this, if it is true. We need to address those reasons.

And fix them.

Y'know, if you have a community of people, half of whom live on one side of a river, and the other half on the other side, and you hold community events only on one side so that the people on the other can't get to them, or have a say in how those events are held or paid for, you don't decide that there will be no more community events. You build a bridge, or throw half the events on one side, half on the other.

YOUR solution is to stop having parties, period.

If voter ID laws point up a problem, then fix the problem. Those laws are not the problem, just the light that shines on it.