An Open Letter To My Fellow Americans: Subject--- Voting Rights
We are a nation in crisis. It doesn't matter whether you identify as a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you believe in conservative, middle of the road, or liberal policies. It doesn't make a whit of difference if you are White, Black, Brown, or any other shade of skin color. It matters not what your religious identification is or isn't. It doesn't even matter what level of education you have achieved. It only matters that we are all potential victims of the same crisis. As Americans we generally believe that what harms one of us, ultimately harms all of us. So for the purpose of this letter, place your political positions aside and attempt to see how some of these issues that you may support, can and will come back to bite you in the rear if we allow them to come to fruition through a "tyranny of the minority".
Our nation is splitting at the seams. We have lost our perspective and therefore have found roads that have led us down the road to tribalism. It is a road littered with the corpses of those who are not "true believers". It is a road that leads to oblivion for all of us. What used to be policy debates have become literal battlefields that seek to obliterate the opposition. All we have to do is look at the situation with Liz Cheney, one of the most conservative Republicans in the House of Representatives, when she dared to vote for the impeachment of the supreme leader of the Republican Party, now former President Trump. She had her leadership position stripped and has all but been banished from the party she has faithfully served. What has formerly been fodder for debate within the larger tent of our system has now become armed camps of zealots demanding absolute fealty to a party orthodoxy. There can be no spectrum of beliefs within the party hierarchy. This is a dangerous and negative turn for the American political system..
There was once a time, for instance, when the issue of voting rights was a somewhat esoteric, but evolving issue. Our nation has had a long, sordid path in this area. It began as a concerted effort to keep Caucasians as the dominant {and frequently only} block that could vote for people to represent them. We progressed through a period of slavery where only white men of property {no women} could vote. This led to a Civil War and then to a Jim Crow Reconstruction { where women still could not vote, and and sorts of tests were required to keep people of Color and whites without property from voting.}. There was vehement opposition to a one man/woman - one vote system. The arc of history, paraphrasing Dr. Martin Luther King, was long but leading to justice, eventually allowed for suffrage for all Americans. The laws of the land have moved toward voting rights with over 85% of the country supporting full voting rights for American citizens. The truth is that on most issues, we couldn't get 55% concurrence. This has been truly an accomplishment.
What is happening now, however, is an attempt at the tyranny of the minority. In almost every state that has a majority of Republican legislators, there is an active effort to disenfranchise wide swaths of voters and move back to a Jim Crow era of politics. This effort is designed to make voting more difficult for Black, Brown, young and elderly voters, if for no other reason, than they are more likely to vote for the opposition. The reason is simple. Change the number of voters and win elections because the electorate will be smaller and consist of more of your supporters. Fewer days to vote, fewer locations to vote, less absentee balloting, restrictions on some types of identification {e.g. students not being able to use college ID cards as proof of residency}, etc. are all being tried in state after state. This will make voting more difficult in areas that have a significant concentration of "other" voters. This regulations are ostensibly designed to "even the playing field" when the minority's domination is threatened. When that tactic is not enough, those same legislators are changing the way that votes are counted. Officials who are legally elected to count votes and certify elections are being displaced by partisan hacks who will do the bidding of the tyrannical minority.
The net result of these processes is disenfranchisement under the title of "voter reform". Unfortunately, reform that does not extend voting rights toward all eligible voters is actually voter restriction. This is a prime example of government by the tyrannical minority.
We are a nation of immigrants. There has been a common belief that as soon as these immigrants become citizens, they are fully entitled to the same rights and privileges as every other citizen. It is what makes America great. NO EXCEPTIONS! It is also a commonly accepted adage among almost all Americans that non-citizens citizens cannot vote. That would be voter fraud.
Every review, every investigation, every audit has resulted in the finding of NO voter fraud. Our elections are secure. Voter fraud is a non-problem searching for an artificial solution. That solution is disenfranchisement. All of these efforts to overthrow our election system are designed to frighten and keep voters away. It is un-American and a tactic used by fascists throughout history. As Americans, we should be working toward 100% voter participation for every adult American citizen. Elections should be referendums on the policies that voters support. They should not be using bait and switch, disenfranchisement, or voter intimidation to keep majoritarian politicians in office. If a political party finds that their views are so far out of the mainstream that they are constantly losing elections, the leadership of the party must either change the party's policies or resign themselves to minority party status. That is the American way.
I plan to write an entire series of articles in this open letter format. There are too many issues that have become combative and have divided our nation into tribal camps. This has to change if we are going to survive as the world's preeminent democracy. We must understand and discuss such disparate issues such as choice, climate changes, educational equity, health care access, just to name a few. Ultimately, the rights of all must by honored. We cannot be a nation of bullies and tyrants. We must continue to evolve into a nation that honors and respects the individual rights of all and and welcomes all whether their views are part of the majority or the minority.
The image is one of my late wife taken while we were touring our great country. The image and article are in her memory.
Good luck. For some people, politics is nothing more than a team sport.
Agree or disagree.....let's try to keep our discussions civil and solution based. Where possible, let's try to cite statistics and/ or quotes.
There are only two things that matters with votes. Were they all cast by eligible voters, and were they all counted ?
Nothing else matters. Whether they came through the mail, through early voting, or on election day are side issues of little importance. Trump spread the lie that there was something suspicious about the voting in swing states, but everything he and his minions brought up has been easily explained.
Let everyone vote, let them vote early, let them vote by mail, give them a lot of polling places. Its not that difficult to keep track of who voted and make sure the number of votes matches the number of registered voters who voted.
We do have a way of making the simple seem convoluted. Voting rights and the process of increasing the vote in this nation are certainly areas where we are taking the long road to a solution that is straight ahead.
The seeder wrote: If a political party finds that their views are so far out of the mainstream that they are constantly losing elections, the leadership of the party must either change the party's policies or resign themselves to minority party status. That is the American way.
Other than Trump, the Republicans did quite well down ballot. The midterms look to be a disaster for
the Dems.
I would be the first to agree that in many parts of the nation, the Democrats have to consider their policy positions. Given that, there are significant areas where Republicans are losing ground. Nationally, we are becoming a nation of cities and suburbs which are in ideological conflict with rural America. The actual numbers in elections show Democrats have about a 52.5 to 47.5 edge in the electorate. The issue frequently falls into the category of gerrymandered districts {which both Democrats and Republicans do when in charge of a state}. I will be writing another open letter on this theme along with the electoral college at some point. Every system that is out there that gives an unfair advantage to one side or the other is not good for the long term health of the nation.
This has to change if we are going to survive as the world's preeminent democracy.
A good start would be dropping 'preeminent'.
touche,,,,,,I should probably not use superlatives as frequently as I do in my writings.
Don’t make excuses for the truth. Especially to countries with less population than California.
we aren’t perfect, nobody says we are but preeminent certainly describes the US democracy in many ways.
No doubt about it so well described IMO.
Lack of humility could be a problem.
Never said we were perfect but to intimate that the US isn’t exceptional in many ways is just disingenuous IMO.
I have to agree with you. America IS exceptional when it comes to national gun violence, divisive politics, maintaining wars, putting personal rights and freedoms ahead of the common good of all, pointing fingers at and blaming others......
Exceptional is a far cry from preeminent. Pick one and plant your feet.
Hey, if I had my way we’d just leave the world to its own devices and take care of our own problems first.
That worked so well prior to WW-1 & 2 maybe we should try it again.
And I’ll take freedom and liberty over tyranny and tyrants any day. Any day ......
Already have, not a surprise that you missed it.
Well, given that choice I agree with you. I wouldn't want to live in a country ruled by Attila the Hun or terrorists either.
Or Winnie the Pooh chairman Xi. The most powerful tyrant on earth today.
What a childish ignorant comment.
why?
Turnout in the middle of the worst pandemic in a century was the highest since William McKinley was on the ballot. The idea that there's a "crisis" is a myth perpetuated to undercut the legitimacy of elections if they go badly for Democrats. It's a scare tactic to keep left wing voters constantly on edge that the Republic is collapsing.
'Stop the steal' was not a myth?
What in the world does that have to do with the claim that we are in a voting rights crisis? Voting has never been easier.
Exactly
How would you know until the next time you vote?
Come midterms, disenfranchisement and invalidation of votes will never have been easier. Republicans have openly adopted the notion that the only way they’re going to win is to wage a war in the freshly manipulated courts after the votes have been cast using unprecedented legislation to steal elections.
Perhaps you are unaware of history in America in the 1900's and particularly in the Democratic-governed South.
So is that comment in support of current Republican strategies to steal future elections or against it? Or is it just another random whatsboutism that you thrive on. My guess is the latter.
I won't give that false statement the time of day.
I realize what the differences are and won't eat all the pablum the Democrats distribute
I won't give that false statement the time of day.
That’s funny, you gave it the time of day above when I first mentioned the Republican plan to steal upcoming elections. Probably because you knew it is true.
No, I was informing you of the truth and history.
Your post remains untrue now as ever
The pre-civil rights south was a nightmare for entire groups of people. Yes the Democrats were largely responsible for that nightmare until the 1960s. Then the playing field shifted. The Democrats became the party of Civil and Voting rights and those Democrats in the south who believed in segregation and voter disenfranchisement became Republicans. Those Republicans have, through this day, tried to disenfranchise as many Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans as they could to keep their states totally in control of the Republican party. The cases in play in Florida and Texas are just the most egregious examples of what is currently happening.
Looking at the past 60 years of history leading to the present day is much more relevant than looking a the history prior to that. We know that Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, and the Bush family would all be considered RINOs and banned from the party. There certainly does not appear that there is any room for dissent in the modern Republican Party. Just look at Lynne Cheney as an example of what happens if you are one step out of party orthodoxy.
yes, I have heard that recited many, many times.
Amazingly Democrats were getting elected on the South well into the 1990's.
Kind of blows the whole "all the southern democrats became republicans bullshit out of the water as far as I am concerned.
Democrats are being elected in the south in cities and affluent suburbs. Their vote totals are increasing in most of the south. It is exactly because of that the Republican party wants to suppress those votes. Show me data that demonstrates that southern democrats today have many, or some of the views of southern democrats of 30-60 years ago. It actually supports my position, but of course southern {or for that matter} northern bigots couldn't see that.
That's obtuse Sean. Prior to the photo ID mandates there were decades of elections that were FAR easier to participate in.
Wow, that's deep Greg. /s
Ya like that? How bout this?
Judging from Vic's and XX's daily crisis alert contributions about the nation being destroyed
by the leftist secular progressive bi-coastal scum,
it isn't the left that is on edge or the left that has a monopoly on scare tactics.
Mail in ballots allowed supporters of both candidates to avoid crowds, avoid anti maskers and antivaxxers,
avoid losing time off from work to vote
and still participate in record numbers.
, 't the left that is on edge
Lol... Do you read this site?
t that has a monopoly on scare tactics.
Good thing I didn't claim they did.
still participate in record numbers.
I'm glad you recognize the truth of what I wrote. Now let's stop the silly talk about voting rights being in danger.
Coming off an election with the largest turnout in generations, the President is hyperventilating about an attack on voting rights being the biggest threat to our country since the civil war. Think about how crazy that is.
The reason there were so many voters had to do as much as the ease of voting during the pandemic as it did with the candidates. Drop boxes, extended voting hours, and increased, no excuse absentee voting got us to the highest turnout ever. That in the midst of the most secure election in history. The issue right now isn't how many voters came out in 2020 {154,000,000 or thereabouts} but what is being done in 2021 to decrease that number in the future. We should all be part of an effort to extend those gains in voting and not to decrease them. I'm not in a panic, but what I see in my travels are too many states who would like to roll back voting sites, decrease absentee ballots, and eliminate activities like "souls to the polls".That is beginning to reach crisis proportions.
Whose votes all too many GOP officials, federal, state and county, did their very best to disenfranchise.
But ya Sean, no worries about voting rights...
Give me a single statement that you think is a falsehood on my part. I will be happy to provide peer reviewed documentation of the accuracy of my statements. I do challenge those of you on the other side of the aisle to provide the same peer reviewed information.
The Pandemic doesn’t happen and Trump wins by a landslide. The left conveniently forgets that and/or is in complete denial of that reality.
Radical manipulation is all they got because they can’t run on policy. Look at the CF they have cooking right now with less than a year in power.
Sheer opinion. It was, IMHO, about personalities.
Trump's vs anyone who wasn't Trump.
I'm curious about your comment about not running on policy. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the Republican party who, at their own convention couldn't for the first time in presidential history, come up with a platform for their candidate to run on. It was a process that was devoid of policy. I would advise you to look at the Democratic National Platform, the Libertarian National Platform, and any other organized political entity and you will see complete platforms and policy statements. As a partisan, I am biased toward my party's platform, but I would be happy to hear what the Republican party's policies are beyond "Stop the steal", tax breaks for the wealthiest among us, changing voting laws, and enshrining the most conservative judges through a one track senate.{as Mitch McConnell has famously boasted.
What policies are official Republican positions on climate change, education, immigration, police reform, church and state separation, wages, gender and sexuality rights, COVID [both vaccinations and mask wearing}. Medicare and negotiation of drug prices, gerrymandering, campaign finance reform, lessening gun violence, white supremacy, racial equality, corporate tax reform, infrastructure {both physical and social}, term limits {for elected and appointed public servants}, debt limits, the military, the filibuster, and any other issue that you may share what the Republicans believe. I, for one, will be writing open letters on most, if not all, of these policy issues. I look forward to discussions with you on each of these items.
Yes, a very informed opinion not tainted by a TDS bias.
Thank you.
You must not have been paying attention then. They basically adopted the same platform as 2016. A “if it ain’t broke don’t try to fix it” approach. You can disagree with the approach but you don’t get to intimate it was devoid of policy. Because it wasn’t. Far from it actually.
You are most welcome.
Then be so good as to share those policies that are deeply held by the Republican party.... Never has there been a situation in a presidential year where any party had time stand still and not have new issues, policies, or platforms that had to be either modified or written anew...... the platform committee did not even meet during the convention.....a perfect party? I don't think that even the most loyal trumpist would think that...
OMG those tens of thousands of OH so fucking inconvenient deaths because of Trump's incompetence. If ONLY the pandemic would have happened AFTER the election. /s
OMG ..... opinions do vary
Are you seriously asking that question or is it just a means to an end to argue about partisan opinions?
The main conservative platform has remained constant for a long long time and remains so today. Gun rights, lower taxes, free markets, smaller government, immigration controls, etc, etc.
Hasn’t changed for decades .... surprising you haven’t noticed
Gun rights supercede all....Trump actually opposed gun rights throughout his career until the time he ran for president. Lower taxes is the great republican canard...Taxes have gone up in every Republican administration on everyone but the wealthy...Free markets are only an issue for the rich....for the Republicans, that generally means the freedom to avoid taxes by shipping jobs out of the country.....smaller government is bull....The deficit has increased under every republican president by larger amounts than under every democrat.. The words don't make it so....the information shared by the non-partisan council of economic advisors lay credence to this.....immigration controls only seem to be part of the republican "policy" when it applies to Black and Brown individuals....Those aren't supporting immigration control, it is supporting racism.....It is amazing when you hear republicans talk of needing more immigration from western Europe and the nordic countries......If you want those things as policy, share them and call them what they are.....bigotry, elitism, the right to kill on a whim.
Opinions do vary, greatly in this case
Exactly. If you had some politician show up in your town proposing a bill that would restrict vehicle registrations to vehicles that are 5 years old or newer, all other vehicles will be scrapped because he claims they're "too unsafe", and it turns out the politician has financial ties to the auto industry and local car dealerships as well as local scrap yards, and can't provide any actual proof of these supposedly "unsafe" older vehicles, are you really going to believe him?
If they can't provide proof of any widespread voter fraud it is crystal clear that their intent has nothing to do with preventing fraud and everything to do with keeping the poor, disabled, students and minority voters, who they know tend to vote Democrat, away from the polls. Their incessant whining about voter fraud they can't prove is just an act to mask their seething prejudices and conservative political self-interest.
So you're OK with voter ID?
Personally, I'm fine with voter ID as long as that ID isn't, in itself, restrictive. Driver's licenses, University ID cards, receipts of certain bill payments, social security cards, etc. should all be allowed to be presented at registration. Once registered, the requirement should be a matching signature to the registration signature. Any dispute over the signature should be settled with the voter filling out a provisional ballot which can be discarded once the signature is verified.
I use my voter registration card. The registration card has all the information the poll worker needs to verify I'm eligible to vote and that I'm at the correct polling station. I provide my registration card as a courtesy; it makes the poll worker's job much, much easier. And that makes the process easier for me, too.
Every right to use that card.....there should be, however, other legitimate ways to show who you are....I am in Pennsylvania and I have never once had to use my voter registration card.....my matched signature has been accepted in every location I've ever voted in......simple, effective, and part of secure voting.
Here, here. Matching signatures most of my life, but the last few times I voted in Bucks County, it was red
and they asked for driver's license.
Not a big deal.
In Texas they want the registration card and an ID.
Also not a big deal
Last time we voted by mail.
They sent us the application automatically, now that's illegal.
We have to request an application somehow with ID.
Last round our county had drive through voting along side the County election offices and
ballot boxes in front of the County Election Office, both now illegal.
Trump won Texas and they are just doubling down to limit what was the most successful election they ever had.
Knucking Futz.
The claims that voters are being disenfranchised also needs to meet the same standard of proof. Where are voters being disenfranchised?
If the party proposing election reforms will not apply those reforms to their own primaries then why are they needed for elections? Will Democrats require extended voting, drop box voting, and mail in voting for their primaries? Will Democrats allow ballot harvesting for their primaries? Democrats claim that failing to adopt those measures disenfranchises voters. If primary voters are disenfranchised then the damage has already been done.
Even the Democratic Party imposes control on primary voting out of fear over voter fraud.
Honestly I don’t think we have a majority voting problem. We have a radical 10% problem. 10% loons on the left and 10% loons on the right.
The rest of us are varying distances left and right of center and could care less who decides to vote as long as their voter bona fides are proven to be legal beyond a reasonable doubt.
No more unsupervised ballot drop boxes outside of crack houses.
Where are voters being disenfranchised?
What is dividing the country is one, and only one, election. The only national election is for the Presidency. All other elections in the United States are state and local elections. The Presidential election must conform to the same requirements as all other elections to avoid regressing to a government controlled by an aristocracy.
Every Senator has been elected by a plurality of votes within each state. Representatives have been elected by a plurality of votes in each district apportioned according to population within each state. Gerrymandering Senate seats is impossible. Gerrymandering House districts is possible but gerrymandering a majority of the 435 districts is impossible.
Senators are elected to represent the population of a state. Representatives are elected to represent the population of a district. Senators and Representatives are NOT elected to represent a political party; that is not the purpose of elections. Neither of the two major parties represent a majority of the electorate. So, Senators and Representatives from both parties adhering to a party platform will always represent a minority political ideology. As long as our political system is controlled by only two political parties, our country will be governed by a minority political ideology.
As long as our political system is controlled by only two political parties, democracy will never work in the United States. Party politics poses the greatest threat to democracy. As long as only two political parties are allowed, the United States will always be governed by a minority of the electorate. Party politics depends upon a tyranny of the minority.
How about a country that is governed by the majority of the people who vote for a candidate. The Republicans who have become President after since Bush have only won one election with a plurality of the vote. The Democrat keeps getting more votes. That is not a majoritarian system that works. There is nothing constitutionally from having more than two political parties. The Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Workers Party, etc. all field national candidates. The reality is, however, that the electorate does want a two party system and these other parties either don't have the following or the platform that is accepted.
We see the chaos in countries with multi-party systems. Coalition governments, votes of no confidence, 4-6 votes for leadership in a 2-3 year period. The old adage generally holds true....We have the worst form of democracy, except for all the others.
I will talk about voting districts and gerrymandering in a future article. Suffice it to say that when a state has a 55-45 edge in party affiliation for that state that the state government and congressional delegation having 60-40 representation in the state legislature and the house of representatives is a powerful reason for impartial lines being drawn by a non-partisan group such as the League of Women Voters. That, however, is a discussion for another post.
The primary system of nomination means that no candidate will ever represent a majority. The primary system is not based upon a national plurality of votes. Party primaries are managed by state party organizations that are not part of government. Party primaries are party business and, technically, should not be government sanctioned elections because political party business is not a function of government. At present only the Democratic and Republican Parties have access to the government's public assets and capability to hold elections. Other political parties are blocked from using public government assets for their party business.
The primary process, which is not a function of government, freezes out independent and third party candidates. Candidate debates are negotiated between the two party candidates while independent and third party candidates are not provided access, publicity, or news coverage. That's how money in politics rigs elections.
Coalition governments must compromise. The hold on power in a coalition government is too tenuous to avoid compromise. Our system of two party control has eliminated the need for compromise; the priority is to obtain sufficient power to force government into conforming to political ideology. The priority in our two party system is to obstruct, attack, and use government for political purposes rather than to compromise and govern.
Using government to impose political ideology onto governing is not democracy. Elected officials representing a political party is not a function of government and is not the purpose of elections.
Federal districts and state districts are not the same. There are always fewer Federal districts than state districts. State Representatives cover smaller constituencies than do Federal Representatives. Comparing Federal and state districts is an apples & oranges comparison. It's an argument based upon nonsense.
It's also important to note that independent and third party candidates have better success in state and local elections than they do in Federal elections.
That's false Nerm. 75% of the districts in the US are drawn by legislatures which just about guarantees that they are gerrymandered.
If state legislatures drawing districts is the measure of gerrymandering then keep in mind that Democrats hold the House majority. So, gerrymandering is used by both the major political parties and not just one party.
Are you attempting to argue that Democrats hold the House majority because of gerrymandering?
DUH!
No Nerm.
I am succeeding in proving that gerrymandering the majority of Congressional Districts IS possible. In fact, it's a regular, intentional practice.
Alright. By that standard, a majority of Congressional Districts will always be gerrymandered. But gerrymandering a majority of Congressional Districts requires both the major parties doing the gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is a problem caused by the two major political parties controlling the political system. And the two major political parties controlling the political system causes more problems than just gerrymandering. So, addressing those problems, including the problem of gerrymandering, would require taking control of the political system away from both the major political parties.
Your argument is actually an indictment of the entire political system.
I didn't make an argument Nerm. I CORRECTED your unfounded claim with facts.
As some states have proven, it IS possible to eliminate gerrymandering. The seating of a commission is a tried and true way of achieving it. The PEOPLE need to demand the change and make it a priority with their legislators in the state.
Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering in the states where they hold the state legislature and governor posts....It is equally wrong for both parties. Districts should be drawn by non-partisan groups such as the League of Women Voters.....This would end the gerrymandering argument.
Alright. I stand corrected.
But your claim that a commission is a 'tried and true way' of overcoming gerrymandering needs more support than just claiming it's 'tried and true'. Commissions established by state legislatures will always be tainted by partisanship. A commission made up of an equal number of affiliates of the two major parties still rigs the political system to favor those two major parties and does not remove partisanship from the redistricting process. As long as partisans are involved in redistricting then the process will always be tainted by partisanship.
Using commissions to conceal the problems caused by only two major parties controlling the political system is not a real solution. And that proposed solution doesn't address the fact that political control of the House shifts between the two parties. In fact, gerrymandering is used within political parties to reward or punish specific members of their own party.
If the House shifts political control under the right kind of redistricting commission, at least it's competitive. Some commissions are a distinction without a difference yet there is evidence that the right kind of commission CAN eliminate gerrymandering AND elevate voter's confidence in the process.
I doubt that the right would agree that the League of Women Voters is non-partisan. They support decidedly progressive policies.
You seem to be trying to justify an abstract solution in search of perfection. The facts are that control of the House does shift between parties in the middle of redistricting cycles without a perfect solution. Let's look at some of the details of reality before jumping onto a bandwagon of hypotheticals.
Gerrymandering can only affect the House of Representatives. The Presidential election and Senate elections are not affected by gerrymandering. Presidential politics, in particular, can exert influence on elections that overwhelms any advantage provided by gerrymandering House districts.
The large block of unaffiliated, independent voters reduces any advantage that can be obtained by gerrymandering. And independents shift support quite often; independents are not loyal to a party. Independent voters seem more likely to be persuaded by grassroots movements than by the politics of the two major parties.
Political parties use gerrymandering to reward and punish members of their own party. House incumbents use gerrymandering to protect their incumbency. Political parties do use gerrymandering to some extent to advance minority policy positions pursued by unelected party establishment but Presidential and Senate elections can easily overwhelm any political advantage obtained by gerrymandering.
There are some real world solutions that address some of these problems. Term limits on Congressional seats limits the incentive to protect incumbency and diminishes the value of using gerrymandering to punish and reward party members. Reintroducing earmarks incentivizes compromise and encourages horse trading to form coalitions instead of relying on unyielding, unquestioning conformity to party platforms. Earmarks aren't more wasteful than minority policy initiatives pursued by unelected party establishment. A mechanism that allows recalling Congressional members would improve accountability to voters.
Changing the method of redistricting is certainly possible but won't deliver what is being promised or expected.
You ARE reading what you want to read into it Nerm.
I am not trying to justify a fucking thing.
Redistricting commissions aren't abstract.
Well, of course, you are trying to justify a 'fucking thing'. At the least, you are attempting to justify that gerrymandering is a significant problem in our political system and are using that justification to advocate a technocratic solution that further separates the process of redistricting from voters. A bureaucratic commission, made up of unelected arbiters, won't be based on voter input and won't be accountable to voters. What you are attempting to justify is separating the process of governing from accountability to voters; whether you realize it or not.
Gerrymandering only affects House districts and potential control of the House by one of the two major parties, as this example shows.
The Presidency, Senate, and Supreme Court cannot be gerrymandered. The President nominates, the Senate confirms. The House is not involved. That simple fact, alone, should demonstrate that our Constitutional government was purposely designed to be a republic with institutional barriers to protect that republic from democracy.
So, yes, you are attempting to justify something. But the technical term in politics for what you are justifying is 'look squirrel'. Unless you are aware of the implications of what you are advocating, you've been played for a chump by one of the two major political parties.
Nerm, have you already forgotten your own fucking comment?
Are you seriously claiming that your MEANT that gerrymandering isn't 'significant' Nerm?
If so, my answer is:
Pffft.
No, I haven't forgotten my own 'fucking' comment. Does that bother you?
I have provided several reasons why gerrymandering is not as significant as you have advocated. You are only making bumper sticker claims without backing up those claims.
You only say gerrymandering is a significant problem. You haven't shown why gerrymandering is a significant problem.
Let's go Brandon!
Nerm, TRY to address my actual comments, NOT what you want to read into them.
I have NOT said a fucking thing about gerrymandering being significant.
Nope never said that Nerm.
Perhaps that's because I never claimed that it is. You're assuming Nerm.
Juvenile.
Didn't you call me out for claiming that gerrymandering a majority of the 435 House districts wasn't possible? Didn't you claim that 75% of the districts in the US are drawn by legislatures which just about guarantees that they are gerrymandered?
Why are you attempting to debate something that is not significant?
Most MENSA debates are rather juvenile. But they can be entertaining. And, if done properly, provides a constructive way to communicate useful information that dispels groupthink conventional wisdom.
AGAIN Nerm, I CORRECTED your unfounded claim with facts.
You stand CORRECTED.
I'm not debating a fucking thing. I AM inserting FACTS were there were none.
You know this how Nerm?
Oh and BTW, I was commenting on your comment. The posit you are 'debating' has been proven to lack cogency.
I actually agree with what you are saying about primary systems guaranteeing a minority approved candidate. It is a sloppy way of getting candidates on the ballot.......not that it is never effective and efficient. It definitely favors those endorsed by the major party.
Back to national elections.... I fully understand that the difference between federal and state districts in size. Gerrymandering at both levels is a problem. Third party candidates can get federal funding for national elections. Presidential candidates qualify for Federal election funds by registering for them. The candidates must raise individual contribution funds of $5000 in 20 of the States to receive matching funds. They are also eligible for federal matching funds if their party received 5% of the vote in the prior presidential election.
No matter how you cut it.... the election system is flawed. I hope that there are enough people out there who will force the government to make changes to improve the system. There are better ways to choose candidates, fund them, and ultimately elect them. Hope to discuss these issues in the future.
No, that's too easy. The election cycle, particularly in Presidential election years, begin with the primary races. If the proposed election reforms won't be applied to primaries then why are those reforms needed for elections?
Doesn't disenfranchising primary voters defeat the intended purpose of election reform? The damage has been done before the real election cycle has begun.
The government sponsored program of matching funds has been deliberately rigged to favor the two major parties. Only candidates representing a major or minor political party are eligible for matching campaign funds. And minor or new party candidates are not eligible for the same amount of matching funds as major party candidates. Independent candidates are blocked from receiving matching funds because an independent isn't representing a major or minor political party.
The two major parties have rigged the election before the real election cycle begins. The major parties use primaries to freeze out minor party and independent candidates. The major parties disenfranchise voters during the primaries before the real election cycle begins.
Election reform really needs to address primaries before blowing hot air about general elections. The major parties already have all the advantages before the general election cycle even begins.
The process and system for conducting real elections consists of compromises to accommodate a diversity of jurisdictions and elected positions in government at all levels. Ballots are very, very location specific because of the many different elected offices that must be accommodated. We can't run separate elections for Federal, state, and local elections; they all need to be conducted at the same time. And the election system must accommodate that.
If we focus attention on only Federal elections then the quality of state and local government suffers. Those state and local elections are where people interested in a political career gain experience in governing. Law schools may provide training on how to write laws but learning how to govern does require on-the-job training.
Our 'democracy' depends upon electing dog catchers as well as electing Presidents. Election reform that focuses attention on only Federal elections is just another attempt to rig the elections to favor the major parties and freeze out minor parties and independents. And that sort of election reform won't address the quality of governing at the state and local level and, ultimately, harms our democracy.
The ability of college students claiming residency to vote at college may be useful for the major parties in Federal elections. But are those college students really paying attention to local school board elections or elections for city and county administrators? Will those college students take the time to understand the issues for a proposed school bond or economic development bond? Or will those college students use party affiliation to influence their vote?
By focusing attention on Federal elections, local government suffers. Doesn't that harm our democracy?
That response is truly disingenuous. There is no civics test requirement for a person being able to vote in a jurisdiction. Doing that would be a return to Jim Crow era politics. There have been polls taken that show upwards to 75% of voters do not know the people or issues that are being proposed for election. They know no more than the party affiliation of those who are running. In many of these elections, candidates are all supposed to run unaffiliated and / or cross filed in primaries. To want to eliminate college students who are residents in a jurisdiction because they appear to you to have no interest in local elections is an absurd idea.
I will tell you that, as a former University professor, a school board member, and a local board president, I would encourage all young people to become fully engaged in the political process. I would hold University seminars on voter registration, voting issues, and where each student would find their local polling stations. Since my retirement, I have done the same thing in 55+ centers, assisted living facilities and local schools. The goal is always to get every potential voter registered and out to vote. We have even been working to get voting sites set up in the facilities to make voting more accessible to everyone.
We have to spend our time expanding the vote, not looking for reasons to depress it. Our democracy is only harmed when we find absurdist reasons not to allow people to vote.
Who said anything about requiring a civics test? Where has that requirement been imposed? And how does the election reforms advocated by Democrats address such requirements? Throwing dead fish isn't addressing the issues at hand; that's only raising a stink to raise a stink.
Those college students are not being disenfranchised. Especially since extended voting, absentee voting, and vote by mail have become normal practices. How can anyone argue that a requirement to vote in person on election day disenfranchises voters while also claiming that non-residents not being allowed to vote in person on election day disenfranchises voters? Can't educators inform students how to obtain a proper ballot and vote without trying to screw up the election process more than it is already screwed up?
Gaming the election system to accommodate partisan biases and provide the two major parties even more advantages in elections is not election reform.
"Those college students are not being disenfranchised. Especially since extended voting, absentee voting, and vote by mail have become normal practices. How can anyone argue that a requirement to vote in person on election day disenfranchises voters while also claiming that non-residents not being allowed to vote in person on election day disenfranchises voters? Can't educators inform students how to obtain a proper ballot and vote without trying to screw up the election process more than it is already screwed up?"
Are you kidding? It's taking me time to stop my lol. They are living in the University's physical jurisdiction. Just because it's on campus doesn't or at least shouldn't disqualify them from voting where they live. I know that they can change elections on the margin, but isn't that part of what elections are for. Student's should have the choice of voting from their campus address or voting in their parent's jurisdiction. These students know that....They know how to obtain an absentee ballot. Most have also made the determination that their vote should be cast where they live the majority of the time. They are residents with the same rights that anyone else in your jurisdiction has. There is NO evidence of double dipping among these voters. Any other position is a flat out untruth.
Does the college recognize that residence for purposes of tuition, fees, and financial assistance? Is that residence recognized for tax liabilities? Place of residence also affects redistricting, various demographic statistics (such as housing and poverty), and requests for and distribution of Federal funds by local government. Place of residence affects more than voting; there are financial and liability implications.
Just because students aren't voting twice doesn't mean they aren't using residence to double dip elsewhere.
The US Census counted University students where they lived on April 1, 2020. All your blather about tuition, fees, financial assistance and taxes is irrelevant to representation AND voting.
Regardless of party, voting rights are essential to all Americans. Voting day should be a national holiday to celebrate our freedom to vote and I believe paper ballots are the way to avoid any questions about any election.
I disagree.
I’ve been voting for over 40 years and have rarely miss a vote. I’ve worked all those years. Somehow I have always found a way to vote without needing a holiday. It’s not that hard but you have to do it.
It’s called taking responsibility and doing your Civic duty. Shouldn’t need to be bribed with a day off to vote.
Does voting need to be a national holiday.....Not really.....if you change election day to a weekend as do almost all developed countries in the world with the exception of Israel and Canada, which both use the weekday election day as a national holiday to celebrate democracy. The fact that we are in the bottom quarter of democracies in the percentage of voters that turn out for each election is a telling symbol of why we do not have it right.
For some of us, voting is easy.... Your 40 years of rarely missing a vote is testament to that. I have gone 56 years without missing a single primary or election. I've always had the luxury of being able to leave work, file absentee or just get off early enough to get to the polls. My whole point, however, is that a democracy works better when everyone can vote. A national holiday would be a way to move in that direction. So would all the other ways that make voting easier. That would certainly have been a goal for most of our founding fathers when they set up our imperfect, but, duplicatable election system.
Is voting hard? I don’t think so but it does take a modicum of civic responsibly above self. That includes being engaged enough to find a way to get to the polling place if you can’t there by yourself. There are plenty of options for that in most places. For example, Public transportation gives free rides to polling places on Election Day in my county. Thank you taxpayers!
I’ve worked into being able to leave work as well when I want to vote but it wasn’t always that way. I’ve voted when I was out of my county. I’ve voted while serving overseas, etc, etc.
I didn’t need to be bribed by another day off or some other freebie and it sounds like didn’t you either. to that I say good for you
For some people, yes, it is. Some work or live far from the voting booth and have unreliable transportation if any. Some are disabled, some don't have a valid drivers license because of parking tickets or moving violations. Some have jobs that they are simply not able to get out of or are so far from the polls when they get out of work can't make it to the voting booth before it closes.
So it's great that you've had little to no trouble but that is just your personal anecdotal observation and experience, it does not mean everyone has those same luxury's.
I am all for a national holiday for national elections or having them on weekends or just allowing every American to mail in their ballots. We would have much higher participation and a much better representation of democracy and candidates that the majority of Americans support.
We disagree, completely. It’s not anecdotal. As noted it wasn’t always easy to vote but where there is a will, there is usually a way. But there has to be a will that shouldn’t need to be bribed to vote. Hell, if that’s what it takes to get people to vote, I don’t want them voting anyways.
That said, how is a national holiday going to magically transport all those unfortunates to a polling place if they can’t get there now?
I suppose all those folks who now have another day off aren’t going to spend it on themselves and will selflessly seek all those unfortunates out and get them to a polling place.
And I have a bridge to Hawaii that I’ll make you a good deal on.
I have voted in every election since I was 18, except a local that was unopposed, absentee a few times for college or work. If it means something you will make it happen.
Exactly and your reward for voting? The satisfaction that you did your Civic duty.
Wow ..... what a concept.....