Page 1 of 2 [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

16 Dec 2021, 4:23 pm

Tied up with the capital insurrection is the concept that the election could have been stolen, which pushes an agenda of creating new barriers to voting. Since the 2020 election, the volume of voting restrictions in the guise of reform in red states has been intensive.

But what are the real risks to our voting process and what do these reforms accomplish?

Excerpt from an article in the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ket-newtab

Quote:
Since 2005, nearly 90 million votes have been cast in Texas. Even if the true number of fraudulent voters is double what the state has prosecuted, the prevalence of election violations—the majority of which involve bad addresses—is about three ten-thousandths of a percent. As for voter impersonation, it is more common for a person to be struck by lightning twice than it is for voter impersonation to happen in Texas.

Those involved in investigating allegations of voter fraud argue that the detection of a small number of violations just means we aren’t as good at detecting the larger number that must be out there somewhere—thus the need for new laws. But laws that make the process of registering and casting a ballot even more convoluted also increase the likelihood that people will make mistakes—the kinds of mistakes that can land them in jail.

It’s a vicious cycle—which is exactly the point. First gin up fear about fraud, then use that fear to aggressively prosecute voting infractions, then use those prosecutions to create stricter laws, then use the stricter laws to induce more examples of fraud, then use those examples to gin up even more fear. The potential impact on turnout is bad enough. But the cumulative effect of restrictive laws corrodes the democratic process itself. In Texas, the narrative fueled in part by Mason’s conviction has given Republicans the momentum to pass laws that restrict voting by mail, permit forms of interference by partisan poll watchers at election sites, and create new classes of felonies for engaging in common forms of voter assistance, such as explaining written instructions to people who don’t speak English. (This last measure is currently facing a lawsuit brought by the Department of Justice.)


Quote:
Demagogues and insurrections are not the only—or even the primary—threats to our democracy. The slow, relentless erosion of individual civic agency is at least as dangerous, and perhaps more so. Most of the people accused of “voter fraud” have made mistakes with no provable malicious intent as they navigate voting systems that grow ever more byzantine and frustrating. Their lives may be derailed by reputational damage, by time and money spent in court, by prohibitive fines, and by jail or prison. The people who bear this burden may be the cornerstones of their social worlds. Their fates stand as warnings to others in already fragile communities. In a country where the influence of Black and Latino voters is purposefully diluted by gerrymandering, and where poorer, overworked folks must contend with long lines and short hours at sparse polling locations, the fear of being caught up in a punitive administrative labyrinth adds another variable to the calculus of deciding whether to vote at all.

That is why there is something in this moment reminiscent of the insidious bureaucratic character of Jim Crow. As all-encompassing as we know it to have been, Jim Crow was not imposed by a single stroke. It was built community by community, year by year, ruined life by ruined life, law by law, and lie by lie.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Dec 2021, 6:08 pm

I couldn't agree more.

It's insidious until, once the snake is ready, it strikes, seeks victims, and poisons.

The ultimate result of the "strike" would have been the imposition of martial law, bought about by the disorder of January 6th.

The only way we are going to stem the tide of authoritarianism---is to be vigilant, and to watch for subtle and not-so-subtle signs.

I cannot see how Trump got away with that phone call to that Georgian state election official----when Trump asked him to "come up" with tens of thousands of votes seemingly out of nowhere.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

16 Dec 2021, 6:33 pm

Sometimes, the instituting of Jim Crow laws was the result of an insidious process. Other times, they came about suddenly.

I always wonder whether the Lincolnian vision of a mild Reconstruction would have prevented organizations like the Ku Klux Klan from forming.

To me, the Jim Crow laws were a product of a pathological psychological process which was based upon a mythology based upon notions of the "animal nature" of ex-slaves, and the alleged power of black people to "take their [white] women" away from the (white) men.

This is very relevant to the subject at hand----because, during the Jim Crow Era (late 19th century to sometime in the late 60s) blacks were effectively disenfranchised in much of the South, despite the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Voter suppression.



blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

16 Dec 2021, 7:07 pm

I find this quite frightening. I was raised to be proud of my country, and the constitution and laws that protect our democracy.

I’ve been watching these protections dwindle over the years, sucked away by people who prefer power.


_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain
- Gordon Lightfoot


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Dec 2021, 7:26 pm

blazingstar wrote:
I find this quite frightening. I was raised to be proud of my country, and the constitution and laws that protect our democracy.


I am wondering if part of the problem is that American jurisprudence has been stifled by a strong christian right who have prevented the evolution or even removal of archaic laws pertaining to things like the right to own guns among other things. There is also this weird almost cult like zeal/reverence to the constitution which you don't find in other English speaking countries. I understand a lot of this may be historic and unique to the US but could these contribute to the abuse and continual systemic issues that persist in the US even up to 2021.

Of course laws persist in all countries that need revision. We discovered back in 1983 that a by-law still existed on our street that prevented the construction of gates that open up toward the road if a neighbour could prove that a horse and carriage would be obstructed if they needed to enter our property. The council by-law stood and we had to replace our gates at our own expense.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Dec 2021, 7:32 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Quote:
Demagogues and insurrections are not the only—or even the primary—threats to our democracy. The slow, relentless erosion of individual civic agency is at least as dangerous, and perhaps more so. Most of the people accused of “voter fraud” have made mistakes with no provable malicious intent as they navigate voting systems that grow ever more byzantine and frustrating.


This is like a metaphor of the snake eating itself. National patriotism was stoked in the claims from Trump that the fundamental pillar of democracy was corrupt with out providing a shred of evidence. It precipitated events where the people claiming to uphold democracy attacked the very institution they claimed they were trying to protect. Had they succeeded many members of congress (including Trump's own VP) would have died.



blazingstar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

16 Dec 2021, 7:32 pm

The US constitution, I believe, is the world wide standard for a constitutional democracy. It was written by a committee of leaders from the independent states. It was designed to prevent the overthrow of the government by the military or an autocrat.


_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain
- Gordon Lightfoot


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Dec 2021, 7:35 pm

blazingstar wrote:
The US constitution, I believe, is the world wide standard for a constitutional democracy. It was written by a committee of leaders from the independent states. It was designed to prevent the overthrow of the government by the military or an autocrat.


Again I'm not a lawyer (I seem to be picked on if I don't keep repeating this) but I learned in school that the British Westminster system is the basis of government in Australia, New Zealand and Canada at the state, territory and federal level. Under this system public sector employees serve the people of their state, territory or country by implementing the Government's policies, decisions and programs.

That is also why we are all part of the British commonwealth.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

16 Dec 2021, 7:46 pm

I think the more important issue to discuss before voter fraud and voter supression is the fact that system is rigged against any decent candidate from rising to the top. They have no chance. The oligarchs choose who we vote for -- the primaries are a joke.

It really doesn't make too much difference who wins if both candidates suck, does it? In other words, it makes no sense having half the conversation.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Dec 2021, 7:57 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
I think the more important issue to discuss before voter fraud and voter supression is the fact that system is rigged against any decent candidate from rising to the top. They have no chance. The oligarchs choose who we vote for -- the primaries are a joke.

It really doesn't make too much difference who wins if both candidates suck, does it? In other words, it makes no sense having half the conversation.


What do you classify as a "decent candidate"?



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

16 Dec 2021, 8:03 pm

cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I think the more important issue to discuss before voter fraud and voter supression is the fact that system is rigged against any decent candidate from rising to the top. They have no chance. The oligarchs choose who we vote for -- the primaries are a joke.

It really doesn't make too much difference who wins if both candidates suck, does it? In other words, it makes no sense having half the conversation.


What do you classify as a "decent candidate"?


Somebody who isn't bought and paid for by the corporate donor class.


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Dec 2021, 8:04 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I think the more important issue to discuss before voter fraud and voter supression is the fact that system is rigged against any decent candidate from rising to the top. They have no chance. The oligarchs choose who we vote for -- the primaries are a joke.

It really doesn't make too much difference who wins if both candidates suck, does it? In other words, it makes no sense having half the conversation.


What do you classify as a "decent candidate"?


Somebody who isn't bought and paid for by the corporate donor class.


That would be nobody.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,208
Location: Illinois

16 Dec 2021, 8:14 pm

cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
I think the more important issue to discuss before voter fraud and voter supression is the fact that system is rigged against any decent candidate from rising to the top. They have no chance. The oligarchs choose who we vote for -- the primaries are a joke.

It really doesn't make too much difference who wins if both candidates suck, does it? In other words, it makes no sense having half the conversation.


What do you classify as a "decent candidate"?


Somebody who isn't bought and paid for by the corporate donor class.


That would be nobody.


Well if that's true, then we're f****d, aren't we?


_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?

Oscar Meyer Lansky


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

16 Dec 2021, 9:59 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
I think the more important issue to discuss before voter fraud and voter supression is the fact that system is rigged against any decent candidate from rising to the top. They have no chance. The oligarchs choose who we vote for -- the primaries are a joke.

It really doesn't make too much difference who wins if both candidates suck, does it? In other words, it makes no sense having half the conversation.


It may all be related.

The powerful discover they can't win elections if people see them as they actually are and what they actually stand for, so they try to control the system. That seems to be where conservatives are today. Not to say today's liberals wouldn't do the same if they were as smart about the game and currently proposing less popular ideas, but the structural changes being made to protect a certain class of candidates against the will of the people are currently being made by conservatives.

As for why there are no good candidates, wow that gets complicated. I think, among other things, that we've forgotten there are no perfect people. We let campaigns win when they focus our attention on every little flaw of the opposition candidate. We quickly write off people for traits that have nothing to do with the job they would be asked to do. And we live in a media environment that encourages crazies to crawl out the woodwork and make life miserable for anyone who gains public stature. It takes an amazing thick skin to want to run for office today.

The expense of campaigns most likely also plays in. Once they hold office, federal elected officials have to spend more of their time building their funding for their next run than they spend actually governing.

And so on.

But that doesn't change the fact that in the short term, just over the past year, we've seen significant legislative changes at the state level designed to suppress voting. At least fixing that shouldn't require a wholesale cultural evolution.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,455
Location: AspinatorLand

16 Dec 2021, 10:20 pm

I feel the country is reaping what they sowed. To elect a person to the highest office in the land who doesn't have any experience is silly. Would you go to a dentist with 0 experience? I hope people realize that the job as president of the US is better suited to a person with government experience than someone who learns the job on the fly. It might be OK for someone to display a cut throat mentality in the business world but not in government. Now some states are displaying the same cut throat mentality in voter suppression tactics. I wonder where they learned such behavior?



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

16 Dec 2021, 11:22 pm

I was going to bring up Ronald Reagan but he did run the state of California as a governor from 1967 - 1975 so did bring some experience to the job of POTUS.

I think the people who put their faith in Trump bought into the capitalist philosphy that if you are able to run a business then you are able to run the country. Ross Perot also used his billionaire status as credentials for his ability to run a country.

The problem with Trump is that he was born into money and inherited a multi-million dollar empire, his father paid for his entry into Wharton business school, he lied about his IQ and highschool grades, his father paid a doctor to have him avoid national service. Trump used his father's extensive business networks to maintain his father's business and people forget Trump was fortunate to have excellent business advisers/managers/CEOs who were the ones who expanded his father's company.

Trump's own crazy business ideas (come up on his own) resulted in multiple bankruptcies (e.g, Trump University).

Trump pretends in his books like "The Art of the deal" that he's a self-made man but he's not, People who put their faith in him simply choose not to do their research and were convinced based on i) his slogans and ii) his position as a billionaire