In your scenario, how do the courts respond to the removal of all registered R’s?
'cause in MY scenario, which has the benefit of being, you know, what is actually happening in real life, the courts have approved the post card/no vote/remove process.
I’d have zero problem with that. Absentee ballots are fraught with verifiability issues. Go to it.
(Bolding and underlining mine.)
But their methods are NOT ensuring that people vote in their county of residence.
They are impeding people from voting in their county of residence.
It’s kind of like the road traffic authority removing your car’s engine to ensure that you drive safely.
Except the result is that you can’t drive at all.
I asked you in the pit thread what you thought of the various claims presented in the OP article.
Since you indicated your preference to discuss the issue in this thread, let me ask again.
From the DailyBeast:
That’s just the summary. Click the link for the whole thing.
(Cross-posted to the North Dakota thread.)
Barring felons from voting is not “rationalized by bogus claims of voter fraud.”
It’s a punishment, one that arises from the result of a felony conviction.
I know Democrats love the felon vote, but perhaps your sources could at least accurately paint WHICH horrible, discriminatory motive animates which horrible, discriminatory rule? Please and thank you.
There is a lot of efficiency to be had with the Kemp Plan, having one of the central candidates serve as voting rules enforcer. Pitcher Kemp throws first pitch to the batter, ball bounces over the plate. “Strike three!” says umpire Kemp.
And the crowd does wild…
I don’t want to “go to it”, that’s the whole point. Going to it would decrease voter participation, and weaken democracy.
But, you are right, if I were actually that concerned about voter fraud and confidence in the outcomes of elections, then absentee ballots would be where to start, rather than purges of eligible voters.
That the democrats are not doing this demonstrates that any sort of attempts at to quoqueing the subject fall flat on their face from the moment out of the gate.
I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history just to be on the winning side of this battle. I’m sure the confederates were bolstered and very happy after their first few wins against the north. I’m sure that the Axis powers were quite happy and confident after their initial waves of aggression against their neighbors went without resistance. Even the US was gloating about how “easy” the war in Iraq would be after we steamrolled into Baghdad.
I absolutely invite you to be happy, be bolstered, be content, even gloat, about winning this battle. The underhanded and immoral often have an advantage at the outset of a conflict. Fortunately, the tide of history has tended towards the side that actually values human rights, as the underhanded and immoral cannot be counted on to not stab each other in the back, while those who actually respect human rights have a much easier time creating the trust that is needed to work together and accomplish great things. All that side can do is destroy that which others have worked hard to create, and somehow think that that makes them better than those who work to maintain, repair, and build the very things that they want to wreck. And once that is done, then they turn on eachother, fighting for the scraps that are left, and blaming each other for their woes.
Take pride in your victories now, because history will judge have them as just another footnote of another loser.
Punishments should fit the crime, no?
I do not see in any way that losing your right to have a voice in your governance has to do with justice. Sure, I could see it in the cases of people committing voter fraud or tampering, as that would fit the crime, but felony disenfranchisement started as a way to keep “undesirables” from having a voice in their governance, and I have yet to see anything to show that the purpose of it has changed at all.
Coming up with ways and reasons to deny the franchise to fellow citizens is doing democracy wrong, no matter how well rationalized you make it.
The courts determine it’s illegal, but who cares, it’s already happened, the R’s were removed and won’t be added back before the election. So, everything’s ok, right?
But this isn’t the point of my post, it’s just so blatantly obvious Kemp is trying to suppress certain people from voting in this election and you don’t seem to care because the courts have deemed it legal. The argument is not whether this is legal or not, it’s that it is wrong. And you’ll say, “vote people in that will change it”, but if you prevent people from voting that want to change this, how does that ever happen? In my scenario, if the D’s brazenly suppress likely R voters right before each election, what can you do?
And one that has fuck-all to do with the crime, or with protecting the public from the felons.
I know this has been said a jillion times before, both on this board and elsewhere, but:
Black people are targeted more heavily by law enforcement than white people. (Tim Scott (R-SC) has attested to that.) And pretty much at each step of the way, the judicial system treats blacks more harshly than whites. So the people deprived of the franchise due to being felons are disproportionately black, you’ll be shocked to know, well beyond what can be explained by any greater propensity of blacks to commit crimes.
The disenfranchising of felons is largely a leftover from the Jim Crow era. It was part and parcel of the general disenfranchising of black people during that era. It’s not there because it’s some sort of reasonable punishment for crimes committed. It’s there as a means of keeping black people down that, in some places at least, has managed to outlive the Jim Crow era that spawned it.
Feel free to continue to be an apologist for it, though. By all means, let your freak flag fly.
Jim crow was legal and constitutional for 100 years too.
Change the laws to make voter suppression illegal, then start putting republicans in prison for doing it.
Once that happens, it’ll stop. Until then it won’t.
With the SCOTUS being right wing, the only way that voter suppression will end (legally) is if the democrats start doing it too. As long as only the republicans benefit from it, the SCOTUS will declare it legal. But once both parties use it, then it’ll probably be overturned and made a crime.
[Firesign]
Peorgie: I still don’t see how you can be my defense lawyer and the People’s Prosecutor, all at the same time!
Dad: Easy, son! This way I can personally see that you’re persecuted to the full extent of the laws.
Peorgie: That’s my dad!
[/Firesign]
This is starting to be a recurring theme, isn’t it? I just used this same Firesign quote less than two weeks ago in the Kavanaugh thread, where Don McGahn got to be Kavanaugh’s friend and the guy responsible for pushing his nomination through, and at the same time the guy in charge of defining the scope of the “FBI investigation” into his conduct.
Please do not appropriate my culture. Unless you’re groovy, then, far out!
Nah, I had to be returned for regrooving several years back. 
Indeed, one selfish thing about wanting to maximalize voter rights for adult citizens is to preserve one’s own. Sure, the Democratic Party could one-up this action by taking steps to summarily remove a 20% Republican-leaning voting bloc from the rolls, but why stop at that? Why not remove 3/4? At that point, you don’t have a mandate from the people, you have a mandate from the government, which makes minor elected officials powerless compared to the party and their leaders who determine who will receive the votes.
I think this is something the GOP needs to look out for, too, and not only in the disenfranchisement arena. For instance, there are those who threaten violence if they lose the election. If you rise up in defense of your freedom, even if you win, you have still lost your freedom because you have destroyed democracy.
Your failure to see it, though, is not in any way a reason not to do it.
It’s a practice with strong historical roots, both in English common law and in Greek and Roman traditions before that.
Voting should be considered a way to participate in the sovereign community that guides the welfare of the nation. A felon shows not just indifference to the welfare of the nation but his outright hostility to it.
You have a different view of voting, relating more to a body temperature being the only quality necessary. Why should I care, then, what you can see or not see?
Of course, once the laws change, the majority of political figures will conform their conduct to the law.
But hey, bring it on. Change the laws. I’m certainly a fan of observing the law. So do it.
Same back atcha. Why should I care, then, what you can see or not see?
Right, as part of “civil death”, where the person was stripped of all rights and property for “infamous” crimes.
It also has strong historical roots in the US as part of Jim Crow and deliberately disenfranchising the blacks (though legally and constitutionally). A much more recent and relevant use that you conveniently seem to gloss over.
No, a felon is someone who has been convicted of breaking a law that is classified as a felony. Anything else is only your opinion about why they did so.
Unless you would like to cite the legal code that defines a felony as you define it, anyway.
Actually, I relate voting to being able to have a voice in how you are governed as being the necessary quality. Your view is different, in that it relates more to a partisan support of those who allow you to vote being the necessary quality.
Look, if you don’t care about democracy, you can admit it. There have been plenty of civilizations around the globe throughout time that were not governed by the people, but rather by dictators or outside powers. Those were not always terrible. If you think that there is a better method of producing your ideal government than democracy, then just come right out and say so, rather than this attempt at legitimizing reducing the number of people who have a say in their governance. Give us your thoughts on how benevolent of a dictatorship you believe would arise once all the wrong people are no longer able to vote, and we can judge that on its merits.
But it would be absurd for you to even try to make the argument that you are arguing for democracy, when you are arguing in defense of reducing the people’s voice in government.
I wouldn’t even do that.
First of all, the Census counts them where they are. If you don’t let them vote where they are, that artificially boosts how much the votes of the non-prisoners count.
Second, over the past few decades, there’s been an increasing tendency to warehouse prisoners in rural prisons far from the communities they had been part of - often even in distant states, thanks to the proliferation of private prisons. This is a bad thing, because it makes it harder for family and friends to visit them, and makes it harder for them to maintain ties to the community they will eventually be rejoining, reducing the likelihood that they will be able to successfully rejoin society.
If the residents of rural towns where a prison is located know that the prisoners will vote there, there’ll be some long-overdue pushback against this trend.