"The "supposed" voter suppression of the Republic party is not."
um, no. In case you missed the OP, it isn't "supposed".
The peer-reviewed study in a scientific journal is done on an existing law, and dovetails with other studies done (I presume on other states, haven't read them yet).
You have to subs ute "supposed" with "proven" voter suppression efforts, if you value being accurate.
Since the practice doesn't exist I don't see how you can classify that as "proven".
it give them the illusion of voting power, which is arguably worse because its more subtle disenfranchisement
all this .
you want to win? convince white people to vote for you.
thats it
thats all it takes.
um, voter ID laws don't exist?
Bull .
Actual, active disenfranchisement is worse by any reasonable definition.
Whatever superdelegates do/are, it doesn't really change the ty GOP pushed policy that actively disenfranchises Democrats does it?
no, its worse by your definition. dont try to project your definitions/views on everybody else, it doesn't work that way. when your disenfranchisement is veiled, it is less likely to be realized and fought against. the illusion of freedom is dangerous because you dont fight for freedom when you think you have it
it doesn't. i never said it did.Whatever superdelegates do/are, it doesn't really change the ty GOP pushed policy that actively disenfranchises Democrats does it?
but democrats whining about republican voting procedures are akin to the pot calling the kettle black
"its worse by your definition"
Repug voter suppression is OBJECTIVELY active and unrelenting.
see FL 2000,
see the slave, red states that RUSHED to implement voter suppression within hours of the REPUG scotus gutting VRA.
Then there's Repg vote counting fraud (OH 2004)
Repugs are LIARS and CHEATS and anti-American
Last edited by boutons_deux; 02-12-2016 at 05:10 PM.
Un, never mind.um, voter ID laws don't exist?
As you wish. Your point wasn't overly clear. Sorry if the pic was a bit over the top.
Primaries are party votes. They don't disenfranchise anyone, even if I accede your point about superdelegates subverting the will of Democratic voters.
The two parties aren't the same, not by a stretch. One is arguably worse then the other in this case, even were I to entirely buy your "superdelegates are disenfranshisement" argument, which I don't.Disfranchisement (also called disenfranchisement) is the revocation of the right of suffrage (the right to vote) of a person or group of people, or through practices, prevention of a person exercising the right to vote.
that's fine. you're allowed to disagree
The superdelegates do indirectly work as a form of voter suppression. People see the numbers and think wow, it is so early and candidate x is just so far behind. What is the point of even voting for them? But it doesnt implicitly discourage them from still voting for the establishment candidate.
But it is not nearly as bad as the active GOP voter suppression which affects off year elections as well and purposely looks to disenfranchise individual voters.
Sixteen States Face New Voting Restrictions in First Election in Fifty Years Without Full Voting Rights Act
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/3...ing-rights-act
Racist Repug SCOTUS "making America great again", for white supremacists.
Well, you are pretty ing wrong to try and draw an "equal" sign between super-delegates, that pretty much effect one election every four years, and a deliberate attempt to keep one' party's voters from voting in ANY election.
Especially when the occasional asshat pretty much comes out and admits the real problem is that Democrats vote. If you want to see a couple of rather direct admissions, John Oliver managed to capture a couple.
This isn't a case where there is some equality in harm. One party has a very clearly more harmful policy, and lies through its ing teeth trying to get a dishonest, harmful passed into law for the sole purpose of advancing Republican policies and candidates at the expense of Democrats.
Voter ID laws have been shown to do active harm by peer-reviewed research, and provide little to no actual benefit. The people who got the laws passed lied to get it done.
Do you support repealing the ID laws?
Yes. I think in theory there's nothing inherent wrong with having people present photo ID in this day and age and the idea isn't inherently racist or whatnot.
However the disparate impact can't be ignored and that law should be put away
That much we can definitely agree on.
This particular issue has been making me madder the more I read into it. Sorry if I got worked up.
"disparate impact"
there ain't none of that DI.
Voter ID, regs, limiting (early) voting places, days, etc, etc have EXACTLY the direct impact the Repugs/VRWC want:
voter suppression and voter disenfranchisement, both key to Repug electoral success.
disparate?
Let's just do like they did in the first Iraqi election.
Purple ink on the finger to show you already voted.
Go back to a real polling place. Absentee voting methods can be established again.
In person voting fraud is so rare as to be non-existent.
You already know this.
Why have a government solution that costs any money for a problem that doesn't exist?
A butt standing up for the sanc y of voting
Texas governor helps debunk his own voter-fraud argument
Gov. Greg Abbott (R) yesterday responded to Obama’s comments, saying via Twitter, “Texas will continue to crack down on vote fraud.” The tweet included a link to thisDallas Morning News article about the governor’s position.
And as it turns out, that probably wasn’t a good idea. Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog went ahead and clicked on the link Abbott included in his message about preventing voter fraud, and found that the Dallas Morning News report told readers that there have been
about 80 cases of voter fraud prosecuted in Texas since 2002, but “only a handful of those cases involved the kind of in-person voter fraud that Texas’ voter ID law aims to stop.”
The newspaper relied on research that found “fewer Texans commit in-person voter fraud than get struck by lightning.”
In other words, while trying to defend needless voting restrictions, the governor emphasized his intention to “crack down on vote fraud.” But at the same time, Abbott pointed at evidence that makes clear he’s cracking down on a problem that doesn’t actually exist.
The Texas Tribune added yesterday:The article pointed to a comprehensive study that found, since 2000, there are “fewer than three” alleged instances of fraud for every 1 million votes cast in the Lone Star State.
The governor of Texas thinks that fraud in the electoral system that put him and others in office is “rampant.”
He can’t back that up.
How does that justify a statewide system of voter-suppression tactics?
It doesn’t.
/www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/texas-governor-helps-debunk-his-own-voter-fraud-argument?cid=sm_fb_maddow
TX Repugs stopping in-person voter fraud is as "true" as TX Repugs killing poor women's health care is to protect women's health.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
