Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[ElNono]

I do the math; you don't (or Im sure you do, but it's an inconvenient math to admit, so you don't). Democrats wouldn't be so vehemently against voter ID laws if they weren't benefiting from the fraud. The lack of accountability in our current electronic systems are there for a reason. There are plenty of videos out there that detail instances of impropriety as well. None of this means I want to go searching for links for you; you're willfully ignorant; it's what you do. Don't feel bad; you're not alone. It's pretty much the signature move of a chumpette. I only give you a hard time b/c you strike me as a person who ought to know about it unlike the other lowlifes.

Yeah, that’s a lot of words to say you can’t back it up. Didn’t think so.

[Splits]

That doesn’t eliminate the electoral college, it tries to work around it by having delegates pledge to vote for the most-vote-getter. Actual elimination of the electoral college requires a cons utional amendment.

Same effect.

[ElNono]

Same effect.

True, however, there’s some legal questions related to all these workarounds, including ranked choice too. I suppose we’ll know soon enough once a delegate reneges on the pledge.

[Spurtacular]

Yeah, that’s a lot of words to say you can’t back it up. Didn’t think so.

Yea, that's simple math you ignore.

Willfully ignorant.

[Winehole23]

Uh, that's not math, it's mostly inference

[Spurtacular]

Ankle biter Blakehole looking to split hairs.

[Spurtacular]

Commie Cuck's dream is Gov Mart.

[ChumpDumper]

Yea, that's simple math you ignore.

Willfully ignorant.

Show us your math.

[Spurtacular]

[ChumpDumper]

derp folds

[DMC]

mouse humpin mouse

accurate

[ChumpDumper]

accurate

you folded worse than derp today. Now keep commenting about me while saying you are ignoring me.

[ElNono]

Yea, that's simple math you ignore.

Willfully ignorant.

That's not math, that's connecting imaginary dots. Again, same old song and dance.

[Spurtacular]

That's not math, that's connecting imaginary dots. Again, same old song and dance.

Dems embargo against voter ID laws just because

[ElNono]

Dems embargo against voter ID laws just because

What's the embargo? Voter ID laws have been implemented in a number of States (primarily GOP legislatures), and in the large majority of cases, struck down in court because they primarily disenfranchised voters. Plenty of cases to cite.

BTW, not only this administration had a commission to investigate voter fraud, which didn't find anything, it controlled both chambers of Congress for a whole two years. Could've easily passed a federal voter ID law in that time, but did not.

Again, your connecting the dots is not only pure unsupported paranoia, it's chock full of confirmation bias.

I'll be the first to admit I was wrong once you back up your claim.

[DMC]

I did mention it, IIRC. Before Obama too. Heck, I’m pretty sure there was conversation about it in the Gore days.

I mean in Washington

[spurraider21]

You made your point clear as a day, and I concur. There’s clearly other non-democratic representation problems that should also be adjusted to the current reality as a nation, such as representation numbers in the Senate. We’re clearly not the same country we were centuries ago.

None of that is happening any time soon, tbh, but nonetheless it’s a valid point.

Obviously, the not-so-popular will push back, usually with an inordinate amount of excuses instead of the actual fact that best way to actually affect democracy in a positive way is to slowly reinvent themselves to become more popular. New ideas, spearheading new causes, etc.

All that said, it’s just about equally important that there’s alternation of power for a robust democracy, but one would hope it comes from such new ideas instead of inadequate representation.

representation issue of the senate, which we've also discussed in this forum, also contributes to the EC show

[spurraider21]

That doesn’t eliminate the electoral college, it tries to work around it by having delegates pledge to vote for the most-vote-getter. Actual elimination of the electoral college requires a cons utional amendment.

yeah, cons ution gives the state legislatures leeway as far as how to decide electoral votes... what splits is talking about is basically asking the states to basically unanimously agree to commit to a popular vote. doesnt seem much easier than amending the cons ution imo

[Blake]

We’ve gone through this song and dance many times, and it always ends up the same: you can’t back up that claim. So I’ll agree to disagree again until you actually can back it up.

Said by many people many times to derp.

[ElNono]

I mean in Washington

I don't know many people in DC right now talking about that (Warren campaign notwithstanding).

[Spurtacular]

What's the embargo? Voter ID laws have been implemented in a number of States (primarily GOP legislatures), and in the large majority of cases, struck down in court because they primarily disenfranchised voters. Plenty of cases to cite.

BTW, not only this administration had a commission to investigate voter fraud, which didn't find anything, it controlled both chambers of Congress for a whole two years. Could've easily passed a federal voter ID law in that time, but did not.

Again, your connecting the dots is not only pure unsupported paranoia, it's chock full of confirmation bias.

I'll be the first to admit I was wrong once you back up your claim.

DMV could easily do provisional voter IDs for free at a minimal cost to the taxpayer. Practical solutions exist. Dems want their fake votes. Come to terms.

[spurraider21]

DMV could easily do provisional voter IDs for free at a minimal cost to the taxpayer. Practical solutions exist. Dems want their fake votes. Come to terms.

i think you'd get a lot less opposition if this was part of the proposal, as well as a reasonable notice period. i also think general election should be a national holiday

it comes down to a balancing act between inconveniencing or even disenfranchising voters vs tackling a problem that quite frankly is virtually insignificant in scope. throwing the baby out with the bathwater, etc

[ElNono]

Yup, what SR21 said. I actually had a post a few years ago when this topic came about (it always comes about when elections are near), basically stating the same thing. I don't particularly have a problem with Voter ID laws, as long as there's no cost to the voter associated with them and voters are notified well in advance.

The problem is, that's almost never the case. Thus why courts, not Democrats, keep striking them down.

[spurraider21]

ie is it worth enacting a requirement that could prevent 10 citizens from voting for the purpose of preventing 2 people from committing voter fraud? (numbers not to scale, i havent read any recent analysis about how many people would actually be disenfranchised... though we know the numbers for actual voter fraud are next to zero)

[Spurtacular]

i think you'd get a lot less opposition if this was part of the proposal, as well as a reasonable notice period. i also think general election should be a national holiday

it comes down to a balancing act between inconveniencing or even disenfranchising voters vs tackling a problem that quite frankly is virtually insignificant in scope. throwing the baby out with the bathwater, etc

I'm not for disenfranchising; but I'm not for the watering down of the word either. Make early voting more possible, etc. But there's no excuse for all these open doors for voter fraud.