The practice of ballot harvesting has absolutely nothing to do with the coronavirus, ditto for anything about absentee balloting. This is an attempt to use the urgency of pandemic relief to pass legislation that might have had a hard time passing otherwise. If Democrats want to keep ballot harvesting alive, or forbid ID for absentee balloting, then propose it in a separate legislative session, but this is an attempt to pass riders on the back of the situation urgency of the moment.
Making sure people can cast their votes in ways other than going to the polls in a time of pandemic without having to jump through major hoops to do so, has everything to do with the pandemic.
The real crime is that the GOP made this a partisan issue, instead of both sides agreeing this was an obvious necessity and passing it by acclamation. They have no shame; they’ll even use a pandemic as a tool to rig the game in their favor. GOP delenda est.
Velocity, in my opinion, you have a terrible record of responding to people who respond in good faith to your OPs. Do you agree or not agree that ensuring a fair election in a time when there’s a pandemic raging is important? Do you agree or not agree that absentee ballots is a way to accomplish this?
Some states still do not allow no-excuse absentee voting. So, if you’re not living elsewhere or otherwise unable to make it to the polls, you have to vote in person. Is this wise, if COVID-19 is still working its way through communities?
Y’know, OP, you could have done the bits about carbon offsets for the airlines, or mandatory diversity in the boards of companies getting aid, or even the minimum wage for work involved in the effort. Why go for an example after making it easier to vote without showing up at a crowded polling place, lowering risks?
(And by now ALL bills being presented, right and left, are becoming more [del]bailout[/del] “stimulus” bills designed to save an ever growing list of individuals, organizations, businesses and economic sectors from being clobbered by the economic downturn. )
I would have to agree with Velocity that the optics are not the best, but there is a real threat to the integrity of elections.
I wouldn’t hold up the stimulus for too long if I were Pelosi and Schumer. They can always propose more stimulus, and there’s little doubt that more will be needed. Get the money flowing now, propose more later on with a few more strings attached. People need helicopters full of cash.
Seeing how this may be the last bill that McConnell allows a vote on this year, might as well make the best of it. The question shouldn’t be “why did Democrats add this to the virus relief bill?”, it should be “why wouldn’t Republicans allow it to be passed as a standalone bill?”
Republican behavior has been, as always, shameful. Sure, set up a slush fund of $400 billion to be doled out to corporations at the administration’s discretion. What could possibly go wrong?
In some cases, it might not be about letting people vote fairly or safely. In some cases, it might be about being able to vote at all. In Ohio, for instance, the governor (or maybe one of the governor’s political appointees; it’s unclear which order was binding) canceled the election in response to the virus. That absolutely makes mail-in balloting necessary. And mail-in balloting, in turn, makes it necessary to prohibit “ballot harvesting”.
Sure, I could have copy+pasted more from the link, but wanted to keep the OP concise. Diversity quotas have little to do with economic relief and are more of an attempt to remake the business world in the image that House D’s want.
The overall point of the OP wasn’t so much absentee voting or diversity but rather that House D’s are trying to use virus urgency as a way of propelling things that might not have been able to pass on their own otherwise.
Oh I understand, and I agree completely. I’m just saying, the sdmb being what it is, people are going to look to nitpick as a way of defending the indefensible. The best way to try and forestall that is to make the entire pattern clear and ask them to defend all of it.
It seems to me that you object to the laws themselves, rather than the manner in which they are being bundled. Or are you new to politics and find yourself shocked, SHOCKED!, to find political horse trading going on in this establishment?
Y’all know that “diversity quotas” is not a thing, right? As in, there is no such requirement in the bill. All it says is that if you take government money you have to provide data about the diversity of your board. No requirements, no mandates, just transparency. It seems fair that the providers of voter-backed money would get information about the people that are taking (and spending) that money.
As to performing arts money, God forbid taxpayer money go towards allowing cultural institutions survive a complete shutdown of their operations. Much better we send all that money to Boeing. Because $35M out of almost $2T is just crazy liberal social engineering.
The other stuff probably won’t make it in, although I would note that the auto bailouts in 2008/09 included increased fuel efficiency. The idea being that companies using public funding have to support the public good, not just corporate profits. But obviously that was a different political environment.
The Post Office’s days are numbered, but I wonder if Congress will have the guts to actually amend the Constitution or just pretend like the requirement to have a Postal Service doesn’t exist.
Under Moscow Mitch, NOTHING is done in the Senate except confirm right wing judges. Some of what Democrats are padding into the bill have been on Mitch’s desk for more than a year and would have passed had he deigned to bring them up to a vote.