New republican voter suppression

I don't know if this question is crazy tomask but if all these voter suppression efforts pass AND all legal recourse is used to try to attempt to reverse these new laws, is armed protest and possible violence justified?

Just saying ice heard "second amendment is used to fight tyranny" argument plenty of time from my conservative friends? Isn't this a fork of tyranny?

 

If you're asking me as I've said many times I'm very very leery of violence for protest purposes. Especially given that at the moment thing are tense here in Minneapolis over the Chauvin trial. Personally while reducing voter hours and mail in voting isn't a good thing I don't see it anywhere near a call for violence. It does make voting harder and does affect minority groups but it can be fought through many means short of violence.

To me the area where you could say that armed revolt is the only alternative regarding our system would be where the Electors over turn the will of their state's popular elections. At that point that would show that democracy doesn't really matter. While what was passed in Iowa is bad the bills in AZ and other states saying that the state legislature can ignore the popular vote and appoint their own electors is far more dangerous. My guess is even if those bills pass they will be struck down in court.

 

Yes but how many years of gerrymandering, closing down polling stations, reducing voter hours, reducing mail in voting opputuinities can a populace takes before a breaking point where they see they aren't be represented?

I'll say that violence probably won't solve the issue but I wouldn't be surprised if violence is the ultimate outcome if this trend continues. It isn't sustainabile in my opinion.

 

The Feds need to set some voting standards to stop this ****, you should be able to vote from your phone.....

DD

 

It was pretty obvious what all the "serious voter irregularities", "40% of Americans believe fraud occurred" from Repugs was about: further voter suppression.

When you allow democracy, Trump loses. Can't have all these brown people voting.

 

The problem is how you define voter supression. For example, Iowa is reducing early voting days from 29 to 20. But that still leaves it with more than most states. New York, for example, has 9. Many states, including liberal ones like Connecticut and Delaware, don't have early voting at all.

So if you look at Iowa yesterday vs today, voting has been reduced. But if you look at Iowa vs other states, it's not the worst - and not worse than some liberal states that no one accuses of voter suppression. So where does that leave it? For example, Iowa has same-day voter registration which is considered a huge positive - something many other states don't offer.

We all know why they are making these changes, but I'm not sure there's any logical reason for legal recourse that says Iowa has to offer 29 days or more of early voting or has to have certain poll hours (I believe some non-voter-suppression states also have the earlier poll closings, though I'm not positive).

 

This sounds like the 'Positive versus Normative" discussions we've had. I'm not going to claim that there will never be violence over these restrictions but I would still argue against them. The most successful strategy against Jim Crow laws was non-violence. The violence used against those fighting Jim Crow laws and registering voters shocked the country and helped to end Jim Crow. Groups like SNIC though who gave up on non-violence weren't nearly as successful in bringing about change.

I absolutely agree that these laws are worrisome and they are blatantly voter suppression. That said I don't think we're anywhere near to Jim Crow laws or where the vote doesn't matter. Violence regarding the Iowa laws and the other laws being proposed in many other states is likely going to backfire.

 

Kinda seems like the GOP was going to do this regardless of the results...

 

Concise.

 

My English Profs taught me well

 

Not only is this attempt to suppress the vote abhorrent.... it’s also stupid strategically.

A. Motivated Voters adapt as we’ve seen before in states like Georgia and this will further motivate
B. You are making a great case for HR1 which will cut the legs under your dark money which really holds together what’s left of their party
C. Politically you are giving Democrats great talking points to turn out voters and pull in new voters by selling the basic fundamental right of being able to vote as to why you should vote for Democrats
D. In states like Arizona we actually have evidence these rule changes would throw out REPUBLICAN votes as they were more likely to vote later close to Election Day.

 

This isn't quite voter suppression but it is Republicans looking to change the rules to make it harder for Democrats. Heard from someone in Nebraska that they are looking into doing away with the divided Elector system they have, where the winner of the Congressional District get's that elector. They will instead go to a winner take all system. This being driven by that Biden won an electoral vote in the Omaha district.

 

This is exactly how I feel, nothing about this seems very strategic.

it's just giving Democrats talking points that will last until 2022.

 

I agree with all your points but to play GOP advocate I'm not sure what else they can do. At the moment their agenda doesn't have majority support and their candidates don't appeal to a nationwide majority. That is why they've lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential elections and even in Congressional elections Democrats get far more votes total than Republicans. It's basically in a 7 game series Republicans manage to eke out a win 4 to 3 with all games close and at home while Democrats win blowouts.

Given that it makes sense to risk it that limiting voting even if there is a chance it might cost them as having more people vote just means it's more likely people will vote against them.

Now they could look to reform their message and get different candidates but my view for people like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy they are trapped. First off they actually believe in their agenda but they know that with what has happened to the party most of the party not only support issues that don't have majority support they want the party to fight even harder and compromise less on those issues. Further as the Republican states limit voting and gerrymander that means the more extreme voices within their party also get stronger. Until they can reform the party they are in a cycle of narrowing their base and less uncompromising. As I stated in another thread they have put themselves on death ground and the only alternative is to try to fight harder.

 

Boy, he really crossed a line this time. He'll really be behind the 8 ball in the next election, that is if the Democrats can sniff out a decent nominee.