We could start with incarcerated felons. That seems like an obvious one.
It’s for “voter confidence”, which, coincidentally, is also measured by Bricker’s metrics.
“Every adult citizen” is not everybody. The rules for who qualifies as either adult or citozen have changed in the past, and may well change again. There’s also the question of who we allow to actually vote, rather than who legally has the right to - those who claim to be adult citizens, those who can prove they are, or something inbetween.
Also, why only citizens, and not permanent residents? Should they be expected to pay taxes without representation? Someone who’s lived and worked in a country for several years has a much greater moral right to a say in their government than a career criminal, for example.
And at what age do we count someone as an adult for the purpose of voting? There’s no one fixed age - although 18 is common, for some things in America it can vary from 16 to 21 (the latter for drinking and long-distance truck driving, the former for driving a car, having sex in many states, and probably other things). IK don’t know if there’s meaningful calls to lower the voting age there, but there definitely is in the UK. That’s after reducing it from 21 50 or so years ago.
Any change will give an advantage to one side or another, whether intended or not.
…if “change will give an advantage to one side or another”: then wouldn’t you agree that it would be a good idea not to invest the power to decide “who gets that advantage” with either one side or the other, but with an independent electoral authority?
Sure.
Lots of people are taxed without representation and while it was a catchy rallying cry during revolutionary times you will note that the FFs didn’t put it in the constitution (personally I think there should be a stronger link there but there isn’t and never has been).
If the visitor to the country wants to be able to vote there is a process they can follow to become a citizen and vote.
Personally I think criminals should be allowed to vote once they are out of prison. They have presumably paid their debt to society and should be encouraged to rejoin that society. I do not see how disenfranchising them helps anything.
Why is that obvious? I mean, if you were sitting down and determining from scratch who can vote, what would you make you say “Well, obviously not incarcerated felons”?
Threads like this make me happy about the existence of the nonpartisan agency known as Elections Canada.
Americans make such good cautionary examples. Better than they make cars, anyway.
They could move polling places to areas where scary, non-white people live and that have limited parking. They could place fewer voting machines at places where rich white people vote.
The latter would be trivial to justify as non-partisan. Let’s say that you do data mining and find out that in precincts that lean Republican a greater proportion of registered voters actually vote, so you base the number of voting machines on the number of registered voters in a precinct rather than the number of voters that typically turn out. Voila, longer lines for Republicans and shorter lines for Democrats.
Or maybe you could just shut down a bridge on election day and cause a major traffic jam in certain precincts. Not that anyone in either party would sink that low.
Right. Why should the people whose daily lives are controlled by the government down to the smallest detail not have the right to influence that government? That’s like saying soldiers shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
And if incarcerated felons are actually numerous enough to constitute a significant voting bloc, either society has reached a point where democracy is probably unsustainable or we’re incarcerating way too many people who don’t really need to be incarcerated.
Interesting timing, to say the least.
I dunno, so much intense effort on Kemp’s side to do anything possible to suppress votes or to impugn their legitimacy, to the very end, makes it look like someone is not too confident of what’s coming. Or that someone is seeking to sign on to the previously succesful “the system’s rigged against me and still I won in spite of invalid votes against me” argument.
…I’m guessing that this article prompted this latest nonsense:
Just a “sniff” of impropriety was enough to open the door.
And this is how the investigation is being done. A Georgia Secretary of State office official sent a text: yes, a text, to the local TV station asking for information about “Rachel Small.”
That information could very easily have been gathered by contacting Sara Ghazal, or someone else from the Democratic Party of Georgia, and asking them. Instead it was asked of a news outlet for the express purpose of planting a news story.
In response:
This is utterly shameful.
The worst might be yet to come. This could be a pretext for refusing to certify the election results, and it’s the sort of thing that, under the wrong circumstances, could foment voter anger and unrest on either side. It’s the kind of shit you see in an election in, say, a former colony. Of course America is a former colony, so there you go…
Well, budgets are tight. We had to pick the cheapest real estate available, amirite?
And it looks like Kemp’s efforts succeeded. The race is so close that Stacey Abrams still has not conceded suggesting there are still enough uncounted votes left to change the outcome (provisional ballots and mailed ballots and such). Kemp has declared victory but there is still a small chance this could change.
Which of course shows that Kemp’s efforts likely swung the race in his favor. When it is this close it doesn’t take much of a nudge to swing the race and he provided that nudge.
He’s given other Republican states a playbook to use. I’m not sure it’s Kemp’s playbook - maybe it’s Kobach’s. Whoever wrote it, this demonstrates how an increasingly unpopular faction in politics can keep ‘winning’ elections and maintaining its grip on political power.
The brightest spot from Tuesday’s results - even perhaps more important than retaking the House - was that Dems stopped the bleeding at the state and local levels. If the Dems want to regain leverage, it has to be a ground-up process.
The R’s will grind up that process any way they have to.
Conversely, it may have cost him a clear victory. I know for a fact that some voters who would have voted for Kemp decided that they could not stomach such shenanigans and switched their vote to the 3rd party candidate.
There’s probably not enough votes left to give Abrams the vote count “win”, but there are enough out there to drive Kemp’s total to below 50%. If that happens, there will be a runoff election. There won’t be a recount, because Georgia voting machines don’t, amazingly, produce hard copies of cast ballots. The state can rerun each precinct total based on vote counts stored in the machines, but they can’t go ballot by ballot because they’ve intentionally prevented that possibility. So a runoff is the best outcome we can anticipate, with the same advantages to Kemp as the general election, with likely lower voter participation.
Which of course will continue in Georgia for 2020, being as the Republican candidates won all the races for state offices, including AG and SoS.