Voter Suppression efforts in full swing

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,550
Reaction score
2,146
Points
113
Apologies, I missed this one. It's tough to keep up with your commitment to posting proclivity! Right, because "states" can take positions on things. They are animate and thusly can or cannot care at their discretion. But "founders" (who, of course weren't representatives from "states," but independent, unaffiliated parties) didn't care. They didn't have huge battles during the Constitutional Conventions about how much they care that threatened the entire process. They aren't "states." They are "founders." :unsure: :rolleyes:
Why don't you weave Howie's statement into your thrilling post. Founders couldn't have imagined that in the future there would be a very large state and a very small one!
And answer the following questions:
1) would it have made a difference if they could foresee that?
2) If Howie is correct, and all of the founders and states, knowing that in the future there would be rural states and highly populated ones, would they have decided against equal representation in the Senate?
3) if you answer YES, they would have abolished the senate at that time, then what should we do about it today? Abandon the constitution? Amend it?
4) Let me channel Howie: is that likely that 3/4ths of the states will approve?
5) if not, then what? Abandon the constitution?
 

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
10,140
Reaction score
989
Points
113
Why don't you weave Howie's statement into your thrilling post. Founders couldn't have imagined that in the future there would be a very large state and a very small one!
And answer the following questions:
1) would it have made a difference if they could foresee that?
2) If Howie is correct, and all of the founders and states, knowing that in the future there would be rural states and highly populated ones, would they have decided against equal representation in the Senate?
3) if you answer YES, they would have abolished the senate at that time, then what should we do about it today? Abandon the constitution? Amend it?
4) Let me channel Howie: is that likely that 3/4ths of the states will approve?
5) if not, then what? Abandon the constitution?
Thanks for sharing.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
17,698
Reaction score
3,322
Points
113
The correct answer is to abolish the senate and fold all its duties into the HOR. There is zero reason, today, to have a redundant second legislative body, that gives equal power to Wyoming as it does to Texas.
 

Deleted_User

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
532
Points
113
I don't care how valid your point is; I asked you a question because I don't know the answer. Sounds like you don't either.
Relax, jumper! If you are not looking for validity, then your question has little merit. The answer is not important as to whether or not they were there to register and to vote. They did not show up in great numbers and yes, their votes were suppressed. In this case their votes were self suppressed. Not by some terrible law. Not by political manipulation. They were suppressed because they did not all vote because students often will vote absentee in their home district. That is very often a different state. So, their numbers are not the population of the college or university student body. Does that help? Doubtful.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,867
Reaction score
2,861
Points
113
Relax, jumper! If you are not looking for validity, then your question has little merit. The answer is not important as to whether or not they were there to register and to vote. They did not show up in great numbers and yes, their votes were suppressed. In this case their votes were self suppressed. Not by some terrible law. Not by political manipulation. They were suppressed because they did not all vote because students often will vote absentee in their home district. That is very often a different state. So, their numbers are not the population of the college or university student body. Does that help? Doubtful.
Dude, nobody's questioning that you know everything. And I'm sure you're a hit at parties.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,321
Reaction score
899
Points
113
Why don't you weave Howie's statement into your thrilling post.
Massive amounts of irony.

The rest of your post is you asking me to speculate on a bunch of hypothetical situations. No thanks. I honestly couldn't care less about the inane "debates" you have with Howie. You are obsessed. And it is intensely boring - and you show yourself to be a prick.

The only thing I was pointing out was an obvious false statement you made about how the founders didn't care about big states or small states. Yep, they sure did. Then they came up with a compromise that probably nobody was overjoyed about, but allowed the thing to pass. I bet lots of those folks went to their graves thinking they got screwed, but it was better than the alternative.

But you are too proud to just say, "yeah, I worded that wrong, what I really should have said was....."
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
47,688
Reaction score
5,374
Points
113
Massive amounts of irony.

The rest of your post is you asking me to speculate on a bunch of hypothetical situations. No thanks. I honestly couldn't care less about the inane "debates" you have with Howie. You are obsessed. And it is intensely boring - and you show yourself to be a prick.

The only thing I was pointing out was an obvious false statement you made about how the founders didn't care about big states or small states. Yep, they sure did. Then they came up with a compromise that probably nobody was overjoyed about, but allowed the thing to pass. I bet lots of those folks went to their graves thinking they got screwed, but it was better than the alternative.

But you are too proud to just say, "yeah, I worded that wrong, what I really should have said was....."
He's still having "debates" with me? It's been a year. Jesus. Get a life.
 

Ogee Oglethorpe

Over Macho Grande?
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,898
Reaction score
1,545
Points
113
I imagine we'll hear a lot more from the left about "voter suppression" as their hopes with crazy sleepy Grandpa Joe continue to look dimmer and dimmer
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
17,698
Reaction score
3,322
Points
113
This admin has honestly, not only felt comfortable going places that no other administration in the past would have dared, but has purposefully targeted those places as priority places to go!

When Biden gets elected in Nov, we need to hit them back hard, right in the nutsack. Executive orders to the maximum, repeal everything. Burn down the border wall, etc. Whatever trolls the Trumpist cult the hardest.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
47,688
Reaction score
5,374
Points
113
Smith was added to the “Voter Suppression Hall of Shame” in October by Let America Vote, a Washington, D.C.-based voter rights political action group when he introduced legislation that would have required absentee votes to be turned in by election day and changed the time polls close in Iowa from 9 p.m. to 8 p.m. Smith’s bill also would have made it harder for students and rural voters by outlawing early voting satellite locations in any state-owned buildings, which include college campuses.
Moritz, who also serves as president of the Iowa State Association of County Auditors, issued a letter Friday to the state government committee on which Smith chairs.
“County auditors, as local commissioners of elections, are baffled by this,” Moritz wrote. “The 2020 primary was very successful, based on a variety of metrics, largely due to the steps taken by (Pate). Counties experienced record or near-record turnout. Election day went very smoothly. Results were rapidly available. Why would the state want to cripple the process that led to such success?
“Sec. Pate and his staff provided great leadership and assistance to counties to deal with the hazards of the COVID-19 pandemic in the conduct of an election. One of the most critical aspects of their assistance was to provide voters with absentee ballot request forms, making it easier to vote from home at a time when Gov. (Kim) Reynolds was counseling Iowans to leave their homes only when absolutely necessary.
“The large absentee turnout had the unexpected benefit of relieving many voters of making the decision whether or not to go to the polls in a time of civil unrest in their communities,” Moritz continued. “We hope that the legislature will reject House File 2486, not just in response to the concerns of county auditors, but out of respect to the hundreds of thousands of Iowa voters who just exercised their rights in the most basic act of democratic government, without having to choose between their rights and their health.”
Pate said the state broke turnout records for a June primary election after more than 500,000 voters cast ballots Tuesday. In Scott County, nearly 61% were Democratic ballots and 39% were Republican.
Moritz anticipates absentee voting will remain strong moving forward.
“We do have to prepare for the worst,” Moritz said. “Hopefully we’re not in the same place in November, but the likelihood we are going to be is greater than not.”


 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,867
Reaction score
2,861
Points
113
Awful. There's no excuse for not having every state make it easy to vote by mail in November. Most regular poll workers are people over 70.
Or just make it easy to vote period. One polling place for 600,000 voters isn't nearly sufficient, and I'd like to hear any argument about how that's not going to suppress the ability of people to cast a ballot.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
738
Reaction score
356
Points
63
So a democratic governor of the state of Kentucky wants to help trump win the election. He was also the attorney general from 2015 until elected governor in 2019. Last I checked states can make their own voting policies and procedures. The federal government has very little impact of the election.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,867
Reaction score
2,861
Points
113
So a democratic governor of the state of Kentucky wants to help trump win the election. He was also the attorney general from 2015 until elected governor in 2019. Last I checked states can make their own voting policies and procedures. The federal government has very little impact of the election.
I guess I haven't seen an explanation yet as to how and why it ended up like that. Not sure I care which party is in charge or whether it's malevolent or mismanagement. Intentional or unintentional, it's de facto vote suppression.

I still feel guilty every time I vote in my precinct and it's easy in and easy out, knowing a lot of people don't have that same privilege.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
738
Reaction score
356
Points
63
I guess I haven't seen an explanation yet as to how and why it ended up like that. Not sure I care which party is in charge or whether it's malevolent or mismanagement. Intentional or unintentional, it's de facto vote suppression.

I still feel guilty every time I vote in my precinct and it's easy in and easy out, knowing a lot of people don't have that same privilege.
I don’t have a good answer for you. As long as it’s a state and county decision I am not sure much can change. But then I would hate to see it managed by the federal government. I must admit as I have gotten older voting has gotten much more complicated with early voting and and in person early voting. I would love to see it be a national holiday and you show up to the voting place show them your ID and vote. When you are done you put your think in black ink. Once the vote goes through the machine it’s destroyed so you don’t have in count hanging chads. But as both political parties know power is the only thing that matters and power come through winning elections.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,867
Reaction score
2,861
Points
113
I guess I haven't seen an explanation yet as to how and why it ended up like that. Not sure I care which party is in charge or whether it's malevolent or mismanagement. Intentional or unintentional, it's de facto vote suppression.

I still feel guilty every time I vote in my precinct and it's easy in and easy out, knowing a lot of people don't have that same privilege.
More info: seems the Dem governor has made requests to the Republican secretary of state, which have been denied. Seems the SoS is the decider, and the governor's power is limited.
 

Bad Gopher

A Loner, A Rebel
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,867
Reaction score
2,861
Points
113
I don’t have a good answer for you. As long as it’s a state and county decision I am not sure much can change. But then I would hate to see it managed by the federal government. I must admit as I have gotten older voting has gotten much more complicated with early voting and and in person early voting. I would love to see it be a national holiday and you show up to the voting place show them your ID and vote. When you are done you put your think in black ink. Once the vote goes through the machine it’s destroyed so you don’t have in count hanging chads. But as both political parties know power is the only thing that matters and power come through winning elections.
The solution seems to be to have not weakened the Voting Rights Act.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
738
Reaction score
356
Points
63
They deemed section 4 and 5 unconstitutional because the law was 40 years old and has not been updated but was simply renewed for 5 year terms. Why does Congress not look at new demographics and update their law to meet todays standards. Basing the law off of 40 year old data does not seem the smartest.

The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”

“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
47,688
Reaction score
5,374
Points
113
They deemed section 4 and 5 unconstitutional because the law was 40 years old and has not been updated but was simply renewed for 5 year terms. Why does Congress not look at new demographics and update their law to meet todays standards. Basing the law off of 40 year old data does not seem the smartest.

The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”

“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”
Because the Republicans have been in charge of one House or the other ever since SCOTUS struck it down and they desperately want to be able to continue their voter suppression.
 
Top Bottom