Incremental differences are magnified in close races. Consider in the last few elections we've seen very incremental victories of 1% or less that make a big difference. With winner take all elections including state Electors just shifting a few thousands votes out of millions can make a very big difference. Beyond shifting votes by making supporters of one side harder to vote the most concerning part of these laws are how it gives state legislatures and courts the power to overturn the will of their own electorates. In the case of this TX law on possibly specious reasons.
“The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power.”
There needs to be accountability when morons like Bryan Hughes publicly states lies like this. Make him publicly recant that statement and if he refuses then he should be removed from office.
Unfortunately, concepts such as accountability... or even integrity, have long since departed the republican party. Instead, whatever it takes to maintain or grow control over the government (and in process, "own the libs") is what drive's today's republican party.
Sure, incremental differences can swing an election. Still doesn't deserve all the garment-rending. You'll also get variances from the weather, the economy, miscounting. Is it such an injustice that a politician wins a tight race instead of losing because of a slight change in the playing field? Either way, half the constituency doesn't like the victor. The effort to create a systemic advantage is wrong. But I think folks are losing perspective on the severity. In the constellation of drivers of election outcomes, it'll be tiny.
I agree with some of this, I think the importance and impact of some of this stuff is being overblown as the end of democracy but with that said, the fact that the legislature could reverse election results is the real issue not moving dates and times. I think it will just drive up voting once people get better educated and they can give a huge middle finger to the GOP. I think it will backfire and flip some state legislatures from Republican to Democratic, I also don't know if people will have the stomach to actually reverse elections like what they refused to do in 20/20. I could just be a blind optimist but the way some Republicans refused to play along gives me hope. It's why Biden was the best possible Democrat to replace Trump it's hard to demonize him and his agenda.
Its more about the precedent set as well. Even in Georgia, somethings make sense in terms of integrity and secutiy, but making it arrest worthy to serve water while also making the lines longer? Even if its subtle, after seeing all the slimy politicians one up eachother on gerry mandering,even obama went back on public campaign finance pledge when he could get money and the answer for both sides in any transgressions towards our democracy is always pointing fingers across the isle. it rallies their base, creates a common easy enemy, and these little things build up over time and in the end of the day the idea and faith instiution of our democracy gets compromised. Its similar to our usps last year. I'd be fine with an efficient rehaul to make it more sustainable and to adapt the usps to modern times. thats a fair reason for new leadership, they did choose someone who has investments and history as a competitor in usps, but thats fine maybe just a fine industry brain. But then doing so right before an election in a pandemic where it will be more important than ever rather than waiting a few months for these issues and making everything slower was just suspect. Now carrying forward they gave an unlikely contract to modernize their fleet to a company who in their presentation admitted they dont have the know how to even build electric. Maybe more so than any public utility, electrics would save loads in maintence and feul over the years especialyl as they make so many short stops. I'll tell ya, the more you meet the politicians, or perhaps the more churned in they get into our current system the more you see how they stand for nothing but themselves. I hope the few and minority that do can sustain in the climate.
It could have a counter effect and get people more engaged. Its always tough to see how the internet outrage translates into actual votes. The public internet outrage for trump was massive, as were protest, the votes were very similar and even close for him than in 2016. he still came more close then you would think he should from the outside. but all in all, its a ripe opportunity for us to engage in civic education voting with our schooling class. Its the most integral thing to learn about being an american, yet the process is engaged with very little in school. If our elections are understaffed/volunteered, why isn't it a senior/junior progra, internship, or credit to go volunteer and engage with the local election process? To even have the young tech minded kids to think of new solutiosn and updates and to be involved with the change and also see how underutilized it is. We all know almost half of americans don't vote for president, now go further to senator,congress its even less...furthermore goto your local mayor, judge, sheriff...even further less engaged. All in all, if its someone that impacts your daily local life you can either vote them out or vote the person who appointed them out. WE have means to organize better than ever, but this uncovered track of gold towards some form of justice is very doable as local elections can be swayed and then work its way up from the bottom.
Depends if you believe in ideas like fairness and democracy. If they just slightly change the playing field by making black voters need to be 25 years old to vote, are you OK with that? When North Carolina literally asked for data on when/how black people vote and then reduced all of those methods of voting, was that OK? (Texas is doing that now - they just don't need to ask since we already know) Is there any line of "slight change in playing field" that matters to you? Or if the party-in-power just makes slight changes every 2 years to gain more power, it's OK?
No it's not. There have been plenty of studies on voter turnout when states made it harder to vote. Hint: voter turnout went down relative to other states. Guess what happens when you make it harder for a specific subgroup to vote? We have tons of data on this.
I agree, I was responding to the guy I quoted saying it could backfire, and I said I guess it could, but i get the whole point is to make it more challenging. Can it fire up activist, birth leaders like stacey abrams rather than the crackpot private jet politicians we have? I hope so
Given the outright refusal to even implement minor changes to issues like gun legislation from the same party trying to implement more voting restrictions, I fail to see the reason any compromise should be met on a non-existent threat fabricated by one party looking to grease the wheels as much as they can in their favor knowing their ideas aren't popular among the general public. The shoulder shrug response I interpret from you is that this will only minorly affect voting outcomes if it does at all and therefore it's being overblown. My understanding for the outright refusal to even implement gun legislation is the old saying that if you give them an inch, they'll try to take a mile. As in if you implement minor gun legislation regulations, it'll eventually lead to the removal of the right to bear arms in the Constitution. I personally find this to be a fringe argument not based in reality, yet it's a common talking point among pro-gun people that I hear so often among friends that just enjoy shooting out in their ranch around the Lampasas area. So why give an inch to any voting legislation meant to deter more Americans from being able to use their right to vote? Why is no compromise on the right to bear arms okay, but compromise on a fabricated issue like voter fraud okay? We know the statistics of suicide from guns, murder rates from guns, the social unrest from frequent reports of mass shootings which kill even children at an alarming rate and the statistics are far greater than voter fraud. I don't get the consent to compromise on this by rationalizing it as a non-issue when it sets a precedent for future legislation to grease the wheels further in one party's favor. It's sorta similar to how Democrats were warned about Obama using Executive Orders to pass legislation and then watching a bizarro world 8 years later where Trump used Executive Orders to pass questionable legislation at least in my eyes. I suppose the counter argument is well, when Democrats get their turn, they can use the same loopholes crafted by the Republican party. Problem is, we already know one side will use fabricated precedent to delay USSC appointees as a rationalization and then ignore the same precedent in order to rush through their preferred USSC judge. In other words, it doesn't go both ways and if it did it would still be consenting to corruption. Why rationalize consent to laying the foundation to rig the game in one party's favor even if at present it may only benefit them even a little?
Republicans want apartheid - it's really that simple. Create rules to ensure they remain in power, which ultimately means, keeping black people from voting.
i is the black vote that monolithic? Will it continue to be in a new age of media where things aren't swept under the rug as much. For some reason biden got off with clyburns endorsement in SC as someone who 'knows black people" i'm always at a loss of what that means and how his particular policies hes supported over the years somehow helps the black community more than hurts, argualbly kamalas as well. that may make more sense in the general vs trump, but its most bafling in the democratic primary for biden to somehow be the guy who knows 'blacks'. so odd how these narratives work, i guess bc he has neera tanden he now knows the 'indian' community. These 90s media talking points just are silly at times as dumb as wanting a president who kisses babies, talks like an action here hyperbole, or is someoen i want to get a beer with...
His connection to the black community goes way beyond "he knows black people". Clyburn didn't endorse him for the hell of it - he did it because of Biden's position within that community. Much of it goes to his relationship with Obama and how he acted as VP - in particular, being a loyal sidekick who supported Obama, rather than treating him how many white people treat their black superiors. It's complicated, but it created an important innate connection with that voting base.
I definitely agree, he got the obama wash. Obama was likeable, charismatic as hell, maybe one of the best speakers(and thats an important part of the gig) we have seen in the white house or up there. Biden played the often ceremonial role of white house. Like most vps, backed up their president who chose them by hand., thats what they do, loyal sidekicks be it al gore, biden, or pence. He didn't do anything extraordinary except be able to play the 'uncle' role with no resonsbiblities and just be likeable without the heat of hte president. When he actually ran in the 80s he had to drop out for blatantly lying about his own history, making up stuff no one normal minded would make up since you can verify it. Then again against obama where he was crushed and not a real contender. Then again this past time with a deep field of dems where he could barely complete a sentance and basically ran on, I am obamas VP. His actual policy in belaware with his support of bankrupt police favoring the banks, the tax haven that became deleware, his policies that are so aganostic to the minority ocmmunity but really entire country in his push for the drug war and heavy crime bills. Heck he still asks for sympathy for beau but to this very day he won't decriminalize and keeps punting on mar1juana. He even kicked out any white house staff who admitted to smoking, a barometer that obama, kamala wouldn't have passed. Remember this is a massive economic failure. We spend billions in the dea to enforce this on non violent offenders, while those allocations could be used towards offenders, we jail people at a 30-80k cost to us ta aayers instead of non violents paying their own adn being in their families and communities. It makes very ltitle sense and just as little as last year he said we need more research to make usre its not a gateway drug while his son openly gets to use coke, write a book, pander to other countries as a lobbyist, and avoid prison. Then his support for almost every war, not just support, his championing of it. That also hurts anyone low income and puts them at risk for something he just got wrong. Any executive with that track record wouldn't get hired, so I gotta ask what exactly did he do, and how they excuse his policies to be in that "position" in the black community outside of just simple name recognition from being obamas VP. Nancy pelosi supported obama plenty, is the black communities top candidate after him?
