Voter Suppression and Why The Republicans Love It So Much?

[One Brow]

Brother, I think you just described every Socialist revolution. Sorelianism, Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, and on, and on all start with noble ideals that you’d have to be some sort of callous monster to not support. Then comes what occurs later.

I am not aware that there has ever been a democratic socialist revolution. I agree regarding national socialist and communist socialist revolutions.

You understand these are three very different forms of socialism, so that what applies to two of them need not apply to the third, right?

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I am not aware that there has ever been a democratic socialist revolution. I agree regarding national socialist and communist socialist revolutions.

You understand these are three very different forms of socialism, so that what applies to two of them need not apply to the third, right?

Maybe Democratic Socialism will be different.

 

[The Thriller]

Weird. Is this necessary to make elections more secure? What did Democrats of color do to deserve this?

In Georgia, Republicans are removing Democrats of color from local boards. In Arkansas, they have stripped election control from county authorities.

How Republican States Are Expanding Their Power Over Elections (Published 2021)

In Georgia, Republicans are removing Democrats of color from local boards. In Arkansas, they have stripped election control from county authorities. And they are expanding their election power in many other states.

www.nytimes.com

Why was this warranted? What did she do wrong?

LAS VEGAS (AP) — Nevada’s Republican Party voted to censure the secretary of state, accusing her of failing to fully investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 election. She says there was no widespread fraud and that her own party is attacking her for refusing to “put my thumb on the scale of democracy.”

Barbara Cegavske, the only Republican statewide office holder in Nevada, said members of her party are disappointed with the election results and believe fraud occurred “despite a complete lack of evidence to support that belief.”

Nevada GOP censures elections official who defended results

Nevada’s Republican Party voted to censure the secretary of state, accusing her of failing to fully investigate allegations of fraud in the 2020 election.

apnews.com

Why did Georgia make this change? It couldn’t be to punish the man who stood up to Trump, right? Georgia isn’t trying to make it easier to overturn election results for the future, right? The GOP wouldn’t ever ever do that. After all, they’re the party of law and order and election security and stuff, right???

“I report to the voters, and so if the voters don’t like what I do, then I pay for that at the polls,” Raffensperger said. “Now, you’re going to have an unelected board that are unaccountable to the voters, and so if something goes wrong, then who do you really hold accountable?

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger objects to being removed as chairman of State Elections Board

While Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger did make the rounds this week to promote Georgia's new election reform law, there was one part of the law that he objected to.

www.gwinnettdailypost.com

Why is Arizona doing the same thing? Did their Secretary of State do something wrong last year?

Arizona Republicans Strip Some Election Power From Democratic Secretary Of State

Arizona Republicans have stripped the secretary of state's office — currently held by a Democrat — of the right to defend the state's election laws in court, or choose not to.

www.npr.org

Are we listening to the experts? @Red did you see this?

The greatest threat to American democracy today is not a repeat of January 6, but the possibility of a stolen presidential election. Contemporary democracies that die meet their end at the ballot box, through measures that are nominally constitutional. The looming danger is not that the mob will return; it’s that mainstream Republicans will “legally” overturn an election.

Elections require forbearance. For elections to be democratic, all adult citizens must be equally able to cast a ballot and have that vote count. Using the letter of the law to violate the spirit of this principle is strikingly easy. Election officials can legally throw out large numbers of ballots on the basis of the most minor technicalities (e.g., the oval on the ballot is not entirely penciled in, or the mail-in ballot form contains a typo or spelling mistake). Large-scale ballot disqualification accords with the letter of the law, but it is inherently antidemocratic, for it denies suffrage to many voters. Crucially, if hardball criteria are applied unevenly, such that many ballots are disqualified in one party’s stronghold but not in other areas, they can turn an election.

Republican officials across the country are laying the legal infrastructure to do just that. Since January, according to Protect Democracy, Law Forward, and the States United Democracy Center, Republicans have introduced 216 bills (in 41 states) aimed at facilitating hardball electoral tactics. As of June, 24 of these bills had passed, including in the battleground states of Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Texas.

The Biggest Threat to Democracy Is the GOP Stealing the Next Election

Unless and until the Republican Party recommits itself to playing by democratic rules of the game, American democracy will remain at risk.

www.theatlantic.com

Our democracy is being killed off by Republicans as we speak.

 

[Red]

Are we listening to the experts? @Red did you see this?

Yes, I posted that article earlier in this thread. Just a couple of pages ago. In fact, I was going to call your attention to it again, when you posted it again. I think it is one of the most succinct descriptions of what the Republican Party is trying to accomplish. Relatively short and to the point and spot on, IMHO…..

 

[One Brow]

Maybe Democratic Socialism will be different.

So far, it has been.

Maybe you can show me those piles of skulls in the Nordic countries.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

I think it is one of the most succinct descriptions of what the Republican Party is trying to accomplish. Relatively short and to the point and spot on, IMHO…..

I see the author’s thought to be so naïve as to be almost silly. What they say is that we can’t rely on the US Constitution, but instead all citizens must have forbearance and mutual respect. Uh, yeah. If people on the internet are mean to each other or unaccepting of other’s ideas then Republicans will kill democracy.

They devote a whole chapter to it in their book (copy is on 1337x.to) or you can see the thought echoed in the teacher’s guide downloadable for free.

The authors argue that while the United States Constitution may be brilliant, the preservation of a democracy requires more … two “soft guardrails” of American democracy are forbearance and mutual respect.
http://images.randomhouse.com/teachers_guides/9781524762940.pdf

The authors also think we need to end our bicameral Legislative Branch by dissolving the Senate because Senators representing low population states have a disproportionate amount of representational power when compared to Senators from high population states. They also think the Electoral College must be ended because Democracies require everyone’s vote to count equally.

The authors believe we must burn the village to save it, that everyone has to be nice to each other on the internet, and that we can’t rely on a written constitution. In listing off their pile of democracies that all died, what I think is how much foresight our founders had in making us a republic. The authors look at the pile of dead democracies and think “we need even more democracy!”

 

[Al-O-Meter]

So far, it has been.

Maybe you can show me those piles of skulls in the Nordic countries.

That isn't Democratic Socialism. The Nordic countries are Social Democracies. They have stock markets and big business. It is just a quirk of translation that reverses the words in their native language, but if you like what the Nordic countries are doing then you are a fan of capitalism with lower corporate taxes than the US currently has. Their personal tax curves are also a lot more flat than ours, with their poor paying more in taxes than our poor.

 

[The Thriller]

Oof…

im just too tired…

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Oof…

im just too tired…

I did have one for you as well seeing as you seem particularly upset over larger governmental bodies overturning the results of local elections. What are your thoughts on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? That is the effort to use a quirk in the US Constitution to effectively end the Electoral College.

For it? Against it? And how do you reconcile that with your distaste for overturning local election results seeing as that is exactly what NPVIC does?

 

[Red]

Oof…

im just too tired…

Phew, I hear ya! Anyone who can read that Atlantic article and not realize it perfectly describes what the Big Lie has wrought in the Republican Party, but instead finds the most important thing to take from the article is that the authors are naive, well, I’m just too tired as well.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Phew, I hear ya! Anyone who can read that Atlantic article and not realize it perfectly describes what the Big Lie has wrought in the Republican Party, but instead finds the most important thing to take from the article is that the authors are naive, well, I’m just too tired as well.

When an author (or authors in this case) presents a problem and present a solution to that problem, I do examine their proposed solution. If A, B, and C are wrong but we can fix it by doing X, then I want to know about X. What is X? Will X cause problems of its own? That isn't to say that A, B, and C aren't true or a problem, but to me X is the interesting thing because it is new. I'm interested enough to download books and do background research. What does history say happened to those who tried X?

If bathing in A, B, and C is your thing then carry on, but doesn't X arouse some curiosity if X is said to solve A, B, and C?

 

[The Thriller]

Phew, I hear ya! Anyone who can read that Atlantic article and not realize it perfectly describes what the Big Lie has wrought in the Republican Party, but instead finds the most important thing to take from the article is that the authors are naive, well, I’m just too tired as well.

It sadly ruins discussion. Because it makes it clear that they aren’t serious about discussing these issues in an honest and fact driven way. It’s like trying to play chess with a player who rather than make moves, eats the pieces. it’s just a waste of time. If all you're getting from my writings and sources of, "He wants unregulated online voting" and "Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt are naive" then there's really no point in discussing things further.

They are either far in over their heads and too stupid or ignorant about these issues to discuss them in a serious manner or they’re just trolls just making a really lame attempt pretending to be serious about these topics. Either way, it’s a complete waste of time to engage. I’m just curious if he’s babes alt or that one guy who got banned alt. I can’t remember his name but he posted nonstop anti socialism videos and memes all the time.

 

[The Thriller]

Phew, I hear ya! Anyone who can read that Atlantic article and not realize it perfectly describes what the Big Lie has wrought in the Republican Party, but instead finds the most important thing to take from the article is that the authors are naive, well, I’m just too tired as well.

More and more people are catching on. We’re dealing with a fascist movement that is setting itself up to take over the house in 22 via gerrymandering and winning the 2024 presidential election regardless of the voting results.

There’s a Word for What Trumpism Is Becoming

The relentless messaging by Trump and his supporters has inflicted a measurable wound on American democracy.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Red]

When an author (or authors in this case) presents a problem and present a solution to that problem, I do examine their proposed solution. If A, B, and C are wrong but we can fix it by doing X, then I want to know about X. What is X? Will X cause problems of its own? That isn't to say that A, B, and C aren't true or a problem, but to me X is the interesting thing because it is new. I'm interested enough to download books and do background research. What does history say happened to those who tried X?

If bathing in A, B, and C is your thing then carry on, but doesn't X arouse some curiosity if X is said to solve A, B, and C?

I offered an opinion of The Atlantic essay by Levitsky and Ziblatt that was largely positive. I honestly found it to be one of the better summaries of what the Republican Party is attempting that I have come across recently. I fwd. it to several of my friends and family and urged them to read it. You offered an opinion that differed from my own. Substantially differed, by the sounds of it.

But, here’s the thing. Our difference of opinion is of absolutely no consequence or importance to me. Whatsoever. And I would hope that would also be the case for yourself. At least I’m fine with these differences of opinion. Frankly, I don’t really understand you. But, so what? You’re free to analyze and interpret and question that particular article as you wish. I’m fine with that. I support it.

I also feel the solutions they pointed to should be part of the approach we need to adopt to prevent a dictatorship of the minority, which, IMO, is precisely what the Republican Party wishes to establish in the United States. I don’t expect you to agree, and obviously you don’t, but neither of us should care that we differ. I offered my opinion when I posted the article last Saturday. I’m not required to address your concerns with their “solutions” or any other thoughts they offered in that essay. I respect you, you seem an intelligent and well read individual.

But, I am tired, and it should be clear by now that I’m nothing if not long winded. Rip the essay to shreds. Be as scathing as you wish in your critique. I’m not required to explain why I find that same essay of value.

 

[The Thriller]

I offered an opinion of The Atlantic essay by Levitsky and Ziblatt that was largely positive. I honestly found it to be one of the better summaries of what the Republican Party is attempting that I have come across recently. I fwd. it to several of my friends and family and urged them to read it. You offered an opinion that differed from my own. Substantially differed, by the sounds of it.

But, here’s the thing. Our difference of opinion is of absolutely no consequence or importance to me. Whatsoever. And I would hope that would also be the case for yourself. At least I’m fine with these differences of opinion. Frankly, I don’t really understand you. But, so what? You’re free to analyze and interpret and question that particular article as you wish. I’m fine with that. I support it.

I also feel the solutions they pointed to should be part of the approach we need to adopt to prevent a dictatorship of the minority, which, IMO, is precisely what the Republican Party wishes to establish in the United States. I don’t expect you to agree, and obviously you don’t, but neither of us should care that we differ. I offered my opinion when I posted the article last Saturday. I’m not required to address your concerns with their “solutions” or any other thoughts they offered in that essay. I respect you, you seem an intelligent and well read individual.

But, I am tired, and it should be clear by now that I’m nothing if not long winded. Rip the essay to shreds. Be as scathing as you wish in your critique. I’m not required to explain why I find that same essay of value.

He either didn't read your article, didn't understand anything about it, or is purposely misinterpreting it so badly that it renders discussion of it impossible. Either way, it's a waste of time to engage. Until he decides to discuss in good faith, you're essentially playing chess with a player who's going to eat your pieces.

 

[One Brow]

I did have one for you as well seeing as you seem particularly upset over larger governmental bodies overturning the results of local elections. What are your thoughts on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? That is the effort to use a quirk in the US Constitution to effectively end the Electoral College.

Actually, it uses the Electoral College to reinforce the popular vote.

For it? Against it? And how do you reconcile that with your distaste for overturning local election results seeing as that is exactly what NPVIC does?

I reconcile it by remembering that the Constitution does not allow for the direct election of a President, unlike all the local offices.

 

[One Brow]

That isn't Democratic Socialism. The Nordic countries are Social Democracies.

Perhaps you can name a country that uses democratic socialism that is not a social democracy?

For that matter, perhaps you can explain the random capitalization? That a common trademarks of kooks, so you should probably avoid them.

They have stock markets and big business. It is just a quirk of translation that reverses the words in their native language, but if you like what the Nordic countries are doing then you are a fan of capitalism with lower corporate taxes than the US currently has. Their personal tax curves are also a lot more flat than ours, with their poor paying more in taxes than our poor.

Who ever said I was not a fan of capitalism?

 

[One Brow]

More and more people are catching on. We’re dealing with a fascist movement that is setting itself up to take over the house in 22 via gerrymandering and winning the 2024 presidential election regardless of the voting results.

More gerrymandered than 2012? How much more than they realistically squeeze out?

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-2020-tableD.pdf

I count 3 seats added in Democratic states and 4 seats added in Republican states. I also count 3 seats lost in Democratic states and 4 seats lost in Republican states.

 

[The Thriller]

More gerrymandered than 2012? How much more than they realistically squeeze out?

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/data/apportionment/apportionment-2020-tableD.pdf

I count 3 seats added in Democratic states and 4 seats added in Republican states. I also count 3 seats lost in Democratic states and 4 seats lost in Republican states.

The thread above.

Wasserman is one of the nation’s top experts on this. He believes Florida alone could gerrymander the GOP nearly back to the majority. I would expect other states, like Georgia and Arizona to follow Florida’s example.

Republicans can win the next elections through gerrymandering alone | David Daley

Even if voting patterns remain the same, Republicans could still win more seats in Congress through redistricting

www.theguardian.com

From what I’m reading, Democrats would have to counter to gerrymander a few states themselves AND flip tossup seats like in Utah (Owens). A tall order for a midterm election where a Democrat resides in the White House.

I believe the advantage for the Dems is currently +9 right? Florida will most likely add between 2-5 R seats. Not sure about Texas, Georgia, and Arizona. I’m also unsure about New York and Oregon, I believe they’re some of the few blue states which don’t have indep commissions drawing up maps.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Actually, it uses the Electoral College to reinforce the popular vote.


I reconcile it by remembering that the Constitution does not allow for the direct election of a President, unlike all the local offices.

Yes. Exactly 100% correct, but I don't see an incongruence in your position. You're consistent. I think we're opposite but it is fine because I get where you are coming from. If you think the popular vote should carry the election then I can understand that. If you think localities in under-populated areas should have their voices protected from being overruled then I can understand that too, but I don't see how to hold both of those as the most important at the same time.