I'm a rationale conservative - can you convince me voting rights legislation is needed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

That’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is Republicans preventing Democrats (mostly Black people) from voting in a hundred different ways. And you are helping the GOP attack democracy with your support.

Please tell us what ways.
Give specific examples.

Read this whole thread and the links in it, and the other threads linked on the first page and the links in them.

So, you don't have one you can justify and prove is racist?

Just posted the link to the Republican lawsuit against mail-in voting. Just because you ignore it doesn’t mean that your question has not been answered. But it is clear that you are just being dense on purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not they have their act together. They still have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not they have their act together. They still have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

So what? Nobody disagrees with that but what’s next, we send a driver to every voter’s home to collect their ballot? Do you think other countries have 24 hour voting or drive through voting or any of this other nonsense? No, they treat their citizens like adults. Only America infantalizes it’s people and treats them like helpless fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The current voting bill the Senate is considering requires and standardizes voter ID, please update your talking points.

Please document. I have searched and cannot find it. If you mean a "sworn written statement under penalty of perjury" along with same day registration, that is hardly a photo ID.

“The new bill permits states to decide whether to require voter identification, but broadens the list of acceptable IDs for states that choose to require them. Under the new bill, states must allow utility bills and leases as well as student IDs and virtually any identification issued by a governmental entity to serve as an acceptable ID. In effect, the bill would require states with stricter ID laws to accept these documents as well, thereby reducing the disenfranchisement caused by strict ID laws in many red states.”
https://www.democracydocket.com/news/my-thoughts-on-manchins-compromise-bill/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not they have their act together. They still have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

So what? Nobody disagrees with that but what’s next, we send a driver to every voter’s home to collect their ballot? Do you think other countries have 24 hour voting or drive through voting or any of this other nonsense? No, they treat their citizens like adults. Only America infantalizes it’s people and treats them like helpless fools.

This is hilarious. You must not work in healthcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The current voting bill the Senate is considering requires and standardizes voter ID, please update your talking points.

Please document. I have searched and cannot find it. If you mean a "sworn written statement under penalty of perjury" along with same day registration, that is hardly a photo ID.

“The new bill permits states to decide whether to require voter identification, but broadens the list of acceptable IDs for states that choose to require them. Under the new bill, states must allow utility bills and leases as well as student IDs and virtually any identification issued by a governmental entity to serve as an acceptable ID. In effect, the bill would require states with stricter ID laws to accept these documents as well, thereby reducing the disenfranchisement caused by strict ID laws in many red states.”
https://www.democracydocket.com/news/my-thoughts-on-manchins-compromise-bill/

That is not the bill that passed the House. And, I'm pretty sure it is the House bill that Schumer is trying to pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not they have their act together. They still have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

So what? Nobody disagrees with that but what’s next, we send a driver to every voter’s home to collect their ballot? Do you think other countries have 24 hour voting or drive through voting or any of this other nonsense? No, they treat their citizens like adults. Only America infantalizes it’s people and treats them like helpless fools.

This is hilarious. You must not work in healthcare.

Yeah there ate healthcare workers in other countries and yet somehow they manage. Amazing.

[Anonymous]

This lists most of what was on the original bill and what is on the current bill.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-might-democrats-voting-rights-bill-entail/

As for me... there is more on there that I am opposed to than what I like.

A few I am opposed to:

Prohibit states from requiring absentee ballots to be notarized or have witness signatures.
Require states to allow people to register to vote on Election Day.
Require states to allow people to register to vote online.
Make Election Day a national holiday.
Require polling places to keep waits under 30 minutes and prohibit banning giving food and water to voters waiting in line.
Require states that mandate voter IDs to accept a broad and uniform range of both photo and non-photo IDs.
Allow states to choose whether to implement public funding for House campaigns by matching every dollar a candidate raises from small donors with $6 from the government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not they have their act together. They still have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

So what? Nobody disagrees with that but what’s next, we send a driver to every voter’s home to collect their ballot? Do you think other countries have 24 hour voting or drive through voting or any of this other nonsense? No, they treat their citizens like adults. Only America infantalizes it’s people and treats them like helpless fools.

This is hilarious. You must not work in healthcare.

Yeah there ate healthcare workers in other countries and yet somehow they manage. Amazing.

Whoooosh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

That’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is Republicans preventing Democrats (mostly Black people) from voting in a hundred different ways. And you are helping the GOP attack democracy with your support.

Please tell us what ways.
Give specific examples.

Alabama closes 31 0f 67 Department of Motor Vehicle locations where most people get the most commonly used voter ID, the driver’s license. The majority of these counties in the state that are home to poor and Black people are on that list. The photo ID law already disenfranchises voters who are not able to obtain IDs. It has been reported that there are currently 250,000 registered voters who don’t have IDs so are now unable to vote in Alabama unless they either travel outside their county to get a driver’s license or take a burdensome trip to a separate location (which is even harder without a driver’s license!) just for a voter ID. And that disproportionately hurts Black voters.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/voting-rights/voting-rights-act/alabamas-dmv-shutdown-has-everything-do-race

The federal court in Richmond found that the primary purpose of North Carolina's wasn't to stop voter fraud, but rather to disenfranchise minority voters. The judges found that the provisions "target African Americans with almost surgical precision."

7 papers, 4 government inquiries, 2 news investigations and 1 court ruling proving voter fraud is mostly a myth

In particular, the court found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state. "This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)," the judges wrote.

So the legislators made it so that the only acceptable forms of voter identification were the ones disproportionately used by white people. "With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans," the judges wrote. "The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess."

The data also showed that black voters were more likely to make use of early voting — particularly the first seven days out of North Carolina's 17-day voting period. So lawmakers eliminated these seven days of voting. "After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days," the court found.

Most strikingly, the judges point to a "smoking gun" in North Carolina's justification for the law, proving discriminatory intent. The state argued in court that "counties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black" and "disproportionately Democratic," and said it did away with Sunday voting as a result.

"Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race — specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise," the judges write in their decision.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/

The clogged polling locations in metro Atlanta reflect an underlying pattern: the number of places to vote has shrunk statewide, with little recourse. Although the reduction in polling places has taken place across racial lines, it has primarily caused long lines in nonwhite neighborhoods where voter registration has surged and more residents cast ballots in person on Election Day.

Georgia's voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million people, yet polling locations have been cut statewide by nearly 10%, according to an analysis of state and local records by Georgia Public Broadcasting and ProPublica. Much of the growth has been fueled by younger, nonwhite voters, especially in nine metro Atlanta counties, where four out of five new voters were nonwhite, according to the Georgia secretary of state's office.

The metro Atlanta area has been hit particularly hard. The nine counties — Fulton, Gwinnett, Forsyth, DeKalb, Cobb, Hall, Cherokee, Henry and Clayton — have nearly half of the state's active voters but only 38% of the polling places, according to the analysis.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/17/924527679/why-do-nonwhite-georgia-voters-have-to-wait-in-line-for-hours-too-few-polling-pl

Texas closes hundreds of polling sites, making it harder for minorities to vote.

Last year, Texas led the US south in an unenviable statistic: closing down the most polling stations, making it more difficult for people to vote and arguably benefiting Republicans.

McLennan county, home to Waco, Texas, closed 44% of its polling places from 2012 to 2018, despite the fact that its population grew by more than 15,000 people during the same time period, with more than two-thirds of that growth coming from Black and Latinx residents.

A Guardian analysis based on that report confirms what many activists have suspected: the places where the black and Latinx population is growing by the largest numbers have experienced the vast majority of the state’s poll site closures.

The analysis finds that the 50 counties that gained the most Black and Latinx residents between 2012 and 2018 closed 542 polling sites, compared to just 34 closures in the 50 counties that have gained the fewest black and Latinx residents. This is despite the fact that the population in the former group of counties has risen by 2.5 million people, whereas in the latter category the total population has fallen by over 13,000.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-polling-sites-closures-voting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The current voting bill the Senate is considering requires and standardizes voter ID, please update your talking points.

Please document. I have searched and cannot find it. If you mean a "sworn written statement under penalty of perjury" along with same day registration, that is hardly a photo ID.

“The new bill permits states to decide whether to require voter identification, but broadens the list of acceptable IDs for states that choose to require them. Under the new bill, states must allow utility bills and leases as well as student IDs and virtually any identification issued by a governmental entity to serve as an acceptable ID. In effect, the bill would require states with stricter ID laws to accept these documents as well, thereby reducing the disenfranchisement caused by strict ID laws in many red states.”
https://www.democracydocket.com/news/my-thoughts-on-manchins-compromise-bill/

That is not the bill that passed the House. And, I'm pretty sure it is the House bill that Schumer is trying to pass.

Manchin isn’t OK with parts of the House bill, that’s why it’s relevant to bring up some of what he proposed because that could end up in what passes the Senate and then it goes back to the House. But thank you PP for posting the 538 link, super helpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not they have their act together. They still have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

So what? Nobody disagrees with that but what’s next, we send a driver to every voter’s home to collect their ballot? Do you think other countries have 24 hour voting or drive through voting or any of this other nonsense? No, they treat their citizens like adults. Only America infantalizes it’s people and treats them like helpless fools.

What a ridiculous assertion. In other countries, it's common practice for citizens to be automatically enrolled to vote when they're eligible, instead of making people jump through an additional hoop. Some elections are entirely online! Many countries allow people to vote at any polling station, not just the one they're eligible for, which increases flexibility and minimizes the problem of long lines routinely observed in the United States. Others make election days a national holiday, or hold them on weekends. None of this "infantalizes" (sic) these countries' citizens. It just reduces frictions to voting. Why Republicans view that as a bad thing is absolutely beyond me. That is, aside from the profoundly cynical Republicans who - probably correctly - see such initiatives as making it more difficult for them to win elections.

Since it seems like you're pretty ignorant about how the rest of the world works, you might want to consider doing some research to see if your priors are actually validated by facts before spewing nonsense. You'll save yourself the embarrassment, and save others the few minutes it takes for them to refute your easily-disproven claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^Biden's comments about Republicans previously voting for voting rights simply illuminates how horrible the current "voting rights" bill is.
It isn't "voting rights." It is federalizing the elections.

Republicans don't want ballot harvesting and taxpayer money going to political campaigns.

It's the same effing bill. It shows how morally corrupt the GOP has become.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m ok with not everyone voting. If you can’t get your act together to vote, your vote isn’t worth much.

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not they have their act together. They still have the RIGHT TO VOTE.

So what? Nobody disagrees with that but what’s next, we send a driver to every voter’s home to collect their ballot? Do you think other countries have 24 hour voting or drive through voting or any of this other nonsense? No, they treat their citizens like adults. Only America infantalizes it’s people and treats them like helpless fools.

What a ridiculous assertion. In other countries, it's common practice for citizens to be automatically enrolled to vote when they're eligible, instead of making people jump through an additional hoop. Some elections are entirely online! Many countries allow people to vote at any polling station, not just the one they're eligible for, which increases flexibility and minimizes the problem of long lines routinely observed in the United States. Others make election days a national holiday, or hold them on weekends. None of this "infantalizes" (sic) these countries' citizens. It just reduces frictions to voting. Why Republicans view that as a bad thing is absolutely beyond me. That is, aside from the profoundly cynical Republicans who - probably correctly - see such initiatives as making it more difficult for them to win elections.

Since it seems like you're pretty ignorant about how the rest of the world works, you might want to consider doing some research to see if your priors are actually validated by facts before spewing nonsense. You'll save yourself the embarrassment, and save others the few minutes it takes for them to refute your easily-disproven claims.

x10000
Why is it that all the voting rights people sound intelligent and full of common sense while the people who (I’ll put it politely) seek to “curb voting rights for any not Republican or White, preferably both” can’t read links provided (“PrOvE iT”) and don’t respond to anything of substance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This lists most of what was on the original bill and what is on the current bill.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-might-democrats-voting-rights-bill-entail/

As for me... there is more on there that I am opposed to than what I like.

A few I am opposed to:

Prohibit states from requiring absentee ballots to be notarized or have witness signatures.
Require states to allow people to register to vote on Election Day.
Require states to allow people to register to vote online.
Make Election Day a national holiday.
Require polling places to keep waits under 30 minutes and prohibit banning giving food and water to voters waiting in line.
Require states that mandate voter IDs to accept a broad and uniform range of both photo and non-photo IDs.
Allow states to choose whether to implement public funding for House campaigns by matching every dollar a candidate raises from small donors with $6 from the government.

To be fair, if waits are 30 minutes or less, then the ban on food and water is fine.