FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


They Want to Make Voting Harder?





handfleisch
This sums it up, really. Early voting has been a great success. So the Republicans want to ban it and replace it with ID checks. I remember when conservatives were the ones who didn't want mandatory government IDs, but this system would force you to have one just to exercise your most basic American right as a citizen.

The GOP is blatantly anti-democracy. They'd bring back Jim Crow laws if they could.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/opinion/06mon1.html?ref=opinion
Quote:

They Want to Make Voting Harder?

One of the most promising recent trends in expanding political participation has been allowing people to vote in the weeks before Election Day, either in person or by mail. Early voting, which enables people to skip long lines and vote at more convenient times, has been increasingly popular over the last 15 years. It skyrocketed to a third of the vote in 2008, rising particularly in the South and among black voters supporting Barack Obama.

And that, of course, is why Republican lawmakers in the South are trying desperately to cut it back. Two states in the region have already reduced early-voting periods, and lawmakers in others are considering doing so. It is the latest element of a well-coordinated effort by Republican state legislators across the country to disenfranchise voters who tend to support Democrats, particularly minorities and young people.

The biggest part of that effort, imposing cumbersome requirements that voters have a government ID, has been painted as a response to voter fraud, an essentially nonexistent problem. But Republican lawmakers also have taken a good look at voting patterns, realized that early voting might have played a role in Mr. Obama’s 2008 victory, and now want to reduce that possibility in 2012.

Mr. Obama won North Carolina, for example, by less than 15,000 votes. That state has had early voting since 2000, and in 2008, more ballots were cast before Election Day than on it. Mr. Obama won those early votes by a comfortable margin. So it is no coincidence that the North Carolina House passed a measure — along party lines — that would cut the early voting period by a week, reducing it to a week and a half before the election. The Senate is preparing a similar bill, which we hope Gov. Beverly Perdue, a Democrat, will veto if it reaches her.

Republicans said the measure would save money, a claim as phony as saying widespread fraud necessitates ID cards. The North Carolina elections board, and many county boards, said it would actually cost more money, because they would have to open more voting sites and have less flexibility allocating staff members. Black lawmakers called it what it is: a modern whiff of Jim Crow.
deanhills
I don't see the point of early voting other than the ones by mail for US residents who are living abroad. If the length of time to vote is insufficient for regular voting with regard to long lineups, why not make the length of time longer, or have an option of round the clock voting?
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
I don't see the point of early voting other than the ones by mail for US residents who are living abroad. If the length of time to vote is insufficient for regular voting with regard to long lineups, why not make the length of time longer, or have an option of round the clock voting?


When working, I'm a good 1.5hr drive away from my polling station. Though my employer is required, by law, to allow me to vote, spending half a tank of gas just isn't economically nor environmentally reasonable. Having an advance poll on a day that I can make it while I'm actually in my polling district makes voting feasible. Add in the fact that normally I can walk in, identify myself, vote and leave within 2 minutes, and it really makes the process a breeze.

The longer the polls are available, and on different days, the more likely people are to actually get out and mark their ballot.

Keeping the stations open longer or 'round the clock presents extra difficulties, at least when adding hours at the end rather than start (though, polling stations here in Canada open at 8:30am, I doubt that adding hours on in the wee hours of the morning would attract very many voters)... Ballot counting begins pretty rapidly once the polling stations close, and it takes several hours to tally all the votes. Adding more hours on to that day only exacerbates the situation.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
Keeping the stations open longer or 'round the clock presents extra difficulties, at least when adding hours at the end rather than start (though, polling stations here in Canada open at 8:30am, I doubt that adding hours on in the wee hours of the morning would attract very many voters)... Ballot counting begins pretty rapidly once the polling stations close, and it takes several hours to tally all the votes. Adding more hours on to that day only exacerbates the situation.
I know it would make a difference in Vancouver, as Vancouver never sleeps. Everyone is on either one of two shifts, the graveyard or the day shift. I'm not exaggerating. It would have suited me very much if I could have voted after midnight.

If you can get to be available on "advance days", why can't you be available similarly on a voting day? I don't think I get it. Are the advance days organized by appointment?Confused If you live so far from the ballot box, why couldn't you simply do voting by mail?
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

The GOP is blatantly anti-democracy. They'd bring back Jim Crow laws if they could.


They're not anti-democratic, only self-serving. (a trait shared by most politicians)
They don't want easier voting because that lets the working people vote, which decreases the influence of the retired elderly, who are a key constituent for them.

If the elderly overwhelmingly voted democrat, the republicans would be screaming for easier voting access.
gandalfthegrey
The Republican brass are racist and they don't even know it.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

The GOP is blatantly anti-democracy. They'd bring back Jim Crow laws if they could.


They're not anti-democratic, only self-serving. (a trait shared by most politicians)

No. To be self-serving is one thing, to actually block democracy in action is another. Republicans don't want to win democratically, they want to win no matter what. They and the right wing movement in general (FOX tv) are subverting democracy in order to get and maintain power.
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
No. To be self-serving is one thing, to actually block democracy in action is another. Republicans don't want to win democratically, they want to win no matter what.
I'd say both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of that. It's sort of how the political system works. Including dirty tricks like digging for all kinds of scandals on both sides.
Ankhanu
Yeah, that's politics, and not limited to one party or the next. Individual politicians (on all sides) may hold ideals, but they don't tend to last long Razz The system in many democracies is more geared towards attianing and maintaining power than actually working democratically. Obviously they have to work within certain constraints, but, politicians will subvert the system as much as they think they can to attain or maintain power.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:

No. To be self-serving is one thing, to actually block democracy in action is another. Republicans don't want to win democratically, they want to win no matter what. They and the right wing movement in general (FOX tv) are subverting democracy in order to get and maintain power.

Exactly. They are SELF-serving. They do not serve their constituents, nor their country, nor democracy itself... And they are willing to sacrifice any and all of those in the interests of self... Just like the vast majority of politicians everywhere on the planet.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:

No. To be self-serving is one thing, to actually block democracy in action is another. Republicans don't want to win democratically, they want to win no matter what. They and the right wing movement in general (FOX tv) are subverting democracy in order to get and maintain power.

Exactly. They are SELF-serving. They do not serve their constituents, nor their country, nor democracy itself... And they are willing to sacrifice any and all of those in the interests of self... Just like the vast majority of politicians everywhere on the planet.

Your error is in the end of your post. There's no proof or reason to say that "vast majority" of politicians in the USA want to subvert democracy, even for their own benefit. And traditional conservatives did not want to subvert democracy; they were in fact Constitutionalists (a case in point would be Marine Corps general S. Butler, a staunch and vocal foe of FDR, who refused to participate in a coup against FDR and reported it to the president). In making this sweeping generalization, you make two errors. The first can be summarized as "both sides are the same, both sides are equally corrupt, so I can go off into the fantasy land of false, unrealistic political options." This leads to the second error, which is to simply dismiss this anti-democratic component of the leadership of the Republican Party as somehow par for the course in American politics, when it is not. It's a serious attack on our democracy by a small group of zealots that needs to be exposed, fought and removed.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
There's no proof or reason to say that "vast majority" of politicians in the USA want to subvert democracy, even for their own benefit.


Odd, I don't remember making that claim... there are some important differences:

I said 'the planet', not 'the USA'.
I didn't claim to have proof, only knowledge.
I didn't claim they wanted to subvert democracy; only that they were self-serving.


Call me a cynic if you like, but I'd say that being willing to ignore constituents' voices in the interests of gaining or maintaining power is exactly par for the course for the world's politicians.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Call me a cynic if you like, but I'd say that being willing to ignore constituents' voices in the interests of gaining or maintaining power is exactly par for the course for the world's politicians.
Right, and those who do seem to have their interests at heart rarely seem to last that long. I think the political systems of countries have become so divorced from their electorates that it is probably impossible to really be in touch. Take Obama for example. I'm almost certain he was dead sincere about all the promises he made during his Presidential election in 2008. At that time he had really been in touch with his electorate. But then life is never as simple as that. Being a President and part of the Government machinery makes for a complete different reality that is far removed from the electorate. In the end, instead of moving left, he stayed with middle of the road survival policies. As far as I can see Obama only picks the battles he knows he can win. Those politicians who choose battles that have a good chance of failing more often than not bite the dust.
Related topics
Frih$ poll (read before voting)
How to Work Out Smarter, Not Harder
Just an article that got my attention...
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Why Some Riot and Some Do Not
Smart people
Voting in Iraq and the Trial of Saddam
voting script with a twist
Fatboy Slim - The Greatest Hits (Why Try Harder) (2006)
BIOS Password enough?
State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!)
Using Voting Buttons in Outlook Web Access
No so recent news - Mistake in voting in the oppositions
Why won't people adopt?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.