# I Pit GOP "voting reform" **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 4, 2011, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180 "2011-09-04T19:34:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 33
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/641 "2011-09-14T23:21:35Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > Tu quoque. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Passing laws to directly create partisan advantage is unethical regardless of who does it. It would be a tu quoque fallacy if I had suggested that the democrats’ doing it made it right. In this case, I did not. What made it right (or at least acceptable) is that the Democrats could point to legitimate reasons, and those reasons justified the change. Their motive was to create partisan advantage but their result was justifiable. Advantage: D. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/642 "2011-09-14T23:26:25Z")
You poor dear, some evil jackbooted oppressor has imposed Ignore settings on you. As if you haven’t simply _chosen_ not to be bothered with anybody telling you how wrong you are. :rolleyes: For the record: 1. \*Nobody \*has said what **Bricker** has just lied about having been said. 2. He has no answer for the question \*actually \*raised; all he can do is sneer at the very concept of the principles of democracy. 3. He has no ability to conceive of a national or human or democratic interest; since the highest principle he can grasp is partisan advantage, he cannot conceive of it in anyone else, either. He’s \*\*Shodan \*\*or **Sam Stone** with a better vocabulary, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![Plumbkrazy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f05b48/32.png) [@Plumbkrazy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plumbkrazy)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/643 "2011-09-15T14:07:03Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Nice try, but you’re lying and not doing it very well. > > You stated: > > As has already been pointed out the Voting reform laws have been pushed through years before Obama was even running so your claim that the push for “voting reform” is due to “one thing and one thing only: A black man in the White House” makes you look like a dumbass. > > Why would I read her. She doesn’t like brown people, Middle Easterners or Democrats. > > That comment is almost as stupid as your other ones. > > Anyway, I’m very sorry for you that you’re so stupid. Perhaps one of these days you’ll read a book and that will change. > > Until then, please stop pretending that you actually care about poor people or minorities and stop shooting your mouth off about subjects you know nothing. Speaking of reading, you might want to read the link provided in the original topic since it was the basis of the fucking topic in the first place. It was published on August 30, 2011, and mentions NEW roadblocks to voting being thrown up by Republicans. Fucking retard. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/644 "2011-09-15T14:12:29Z")
> [@Plumbkrazy](#): > > Fucking retard. I love how you signed your post. The path to enlightenment is self-knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/645 "2011-09-15T16:26:46Z")
My, what a journey of discovery this thread has become. Friend **Bricker** , in his never-ending quest for half-truth, injustice and the Republican way, has discovered a new moral principle to apply to politics: that the intention of the thing can be set aside if the result can be justified. While it is true that the Republicans in this effort are using the power of the legislature to stack the electoral deck in their favor, which is reprehensible, is totally hunky-dory and full of crunchy goodness because it has the justifiable effect of solving a problem which, essentially, does not exist. Educated by Jesuits. It shows. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/646 "2011-09-15T18:22:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Don’t a couple of states already do this? Yes but… > [@](#): > > Nebraska and Maine already have the system the Pennsylvania GOP is pushing. But the two states’ small electoral vote values mean it’s actually mathematically impossible for a candidate to win the popular vote there but lose the electoral vote, says Akhil Reed Amar, a constitutional law professor at Yale University. Pennsylvania, however, is a different story: “It might be very likely to happen in [Pennsylvania], and that’s what makes this something completely new under the sun,” Amar says. “It’s something that no previous legislature in America since the Civil War has ever had the audacity to impose.” > > SOURCE: [The GOP’s Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012 – Mother Jones](http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/09/gop-electoral-college-plan-beat-obama-2012) ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/647 "2011-09-15T18:53:45Z")
This whole push to change the way Pennsylvania allocates its electoral votes could be a mixed bag for Republicans. [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/15/319666/gop-house-members-afraid-of-losing-their-own-seats-push-back-against-pa-gov-corbetts-vote-rigging-plan/](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/15/319666/gop-house-members-afraid-of-losing-their-own-seats-push-back-against-pa-gov-corbetts-vote-rigging-plan/) > [@](#): > > GOP House Members Afraid Of Losing Their Own Seats Push Back Against Pennsylvania Gov. Corbett’s Vote Rigging Plan > > To several Republicans in marginal districts, the plan has a catch: they’re worried that Democrats will move dollars and ground troops from solid blue districts to battlegrounds in pursuit of electoral votes — and in the process, knock off the Republicans currently in the seats. > Suburban Philadelphia Reps. Jim Gerlach, Pat Meehan and Mike Fitzpatrick have the most at stake, since all represent districts Democrats won in the last two presidential elections. They and the rest of the Republicans in the delegation are joining with National Republican Congressional Committee officials to respond and mobilize against the change. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/648 "2011-09-15T19:28:19Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Yes but… But doesn’t this method actually do more for democracy? Right now, the winner-take-all system means that the losing candidate gets zero votes. This system splits the votes up in at least rough proportion to the areas casting them. Yes, it could hurt Obama. But the change furthers democracy. I thought that was always the touchstone? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/649 "2011-09-15T19:35:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But doesn’t this method actually do more for democracy? Right now, the winner-take-all system means that the losing candidate gets zero votes. This system splits the votes up in at least rough proportion to the areas casting them. > > Yes, it could hurt Obama. But the change furthers democracy. I thought that was always the touchstone? I could be persuaded to this if Gerrymandering was not so prevalent (and I know both sides do it). ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/650 "2011-09-15T19:43:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But doesn’t this method actually do more for democracy? Right now, the winner-take-all system means that the losing candidate gets zero votes. This system splits the votes up in at least rough proportion to the areas casting them. > > Yes, it could hurt Obama. But the change furthers democracy. I thought that was always the touchstone? It only furthers democracy if everyone does it. If it’s done selectively and intentionally only in states where it favors one party then it does not further democracy. It may be legal, but it’s an unethical gaming of the system, whichever party does it. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/651 "2011-09-15T21:39:53Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > It only furthers democracy if everyone does it. If it’s done selectively and intentionally only in states where it favors one party then it does not further democracy. > > It may be legal, but it’s an unethical gaming of the system, whichever party does it. Right. And this is so self-evident that I find it hard to believe Bricker wasn’t well aware of it. Do this tomorrow in California: favors Republicans. Do it tomorrow in Texas: favors Democrats. Do it tomorrow nationwide, honestly not sure who if anyone it favorh. It might make gerrymandering more important than ever, depending on whether a state’s electoral votes are distributed on a district-line basis or a overall-state-popular-vote basis. It would certainly “fix” one issue, which is that such a massive proportion of presidential-level campaigning happens in only a few relevant states. I think I’d be for it (although at that point, why not just go to straight nationwide popular vote?) My point is, it’s entirely possible to take an action whose on-the-surface appearance makes things more (small-d) democratic (ie, switching California away from winner-take-all electoral votes), but whose actual meaningful impact would in fact be massively partisan – and I’m very suspicious of the motives of anyone proposing such a scheme. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/652 "2011-09-15T23:26:05Z")
Right. My point is that it’s very possible to do something that favors “more democracy” while still scheming for partisan advantage. It’s why I brought up Massachusetts. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/653 "2011-09-15T23:31:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But doesn’t this method actually do more for democracy? Right now, the winner-take-all system means that the losing candidate gets zero votes. This system splits the votes up in at least rough proportion to the areas casting them. I’d be a lot more likely to support this if I didn’t see it as something that would be changed on a whim, for partisan reasons, exactly as Massachusetts kept dinking around with the Senatorial succession law, and exactly for the reason that the Pennsylvania governor is proposing it now. (I’d support it 100% if all states did it, and promised not to change for at least a couple of cycles. That’d give time to uncover unintended consequences. But I suspect that won’t happen.) I’m uncertain what the Pennsylvania governor hopes to gain, anyway. The Republican representatives objecting to it (as quoted above) are in the same situation as many of the Democrats who won in 2008 were: on thin ice. Barring massive vote-splitting and an electoral college that is split within 10 votes, it won’t make a difference. That said, yes, it is completely legal and constitutional for Pennsylvania’s legislature to do this if they so choose. ---
**Author:** ![Cyberhwk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7993a0/32.png) [@Cyberhwk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cyberhwk)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/654 "2011-09-16T04:06:22Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Do it tomorrow nationwide, honestly not sure who if anyone it favorh. I don’t see how it couldn’t favor the Republican candidate. You’re basically getting rid of the advantage Democrats have in taking all electors from California and New York (tempered by the Democratic vote elsewhere granted), but allowing the advantage small states have with their two Senators to remain. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/655 "2011-09-16T12:42:50Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Registration rules vary depending on the state. For example some states require you to be a resident for a certain number of years to vote in that state while others require a few weeks or months. Similarly others allow you to register on election day. So although the election results are federal, and thus the rights should be the same for citizens of different states, and therefore the rules to implement the rights should be the same across the board - they aren’t. Does nobody consider it unfair if the length of residency varies? Doesn’t this mean that when you move, you can no longer vote in your old place, but not yet in the new? > [@](#): > > Usually there’s a deadline but with rare exceptions, states don’t check the lists of registered voters with convicted felons because that would cause a huge snafu considering how many people have similar names. Um, Florida’s purge of the registration rolls, causing people with similar names to felons to be stricken, before the 2000 election, was a “rare exception”? Do you mean the Republican governors have stopped doing that now? > [@](#): > > Also, generally speaking registrations don’t expire unless you don’t vote in a certain number of elections or notify the board you’ve changed your address. That’s why there are a number of areas of the country, most notably college towns, where registered voters exceed the residents. > > I myself am still registered to vote in two, possibly three different states and realistically there’s nothing in place to stop me from voting in Rhode Island, where I am now, and voting via absentee ballot elsewhere. So how does absentee ballot work? > [@](#): > > Like I said, our system operates on the honor system. I don’t see what “honor” has to do with “doing it the way the founding fathers did it with 18th century technology instead of modern technology”. Or “the American way is the best because USA is the greatest, so we will keep doing it that way”. I mean, you have heard of these things like computers, right? You could put all registered voters in one database, using the de-facto-ID of SSN, and cross-reference to make sure that John Smith who has moved from RI to Nevada to Florida can only vote in one place of residence. Or is a national database too much Anti-christ-ish? Too un-american, where laws were written to allow petty criminals to circumvent police? ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/656 "2011-09-16T17:44:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Right. > > My point is that it’s very possible to do something that favors “more democracy” while still scheming for partisan advantage. It’s why I brought up Massachusetts. Sure. At the same time, there’s no reason to think that all such acts are created equal. To take an extreme hypothetical, suppose a republican discovers that a bunch of democratic voting workers are engaged in ongoing systematic fraud in which they literally just throw away republican votes without counting them. Now, the republican who did the discovering might be a partisan shill who, if he discovered the same fraud in the opposite direction, would just pretend he saw nothing and walk away. Nonetheless, we should clearly work to eliminate that fraud and punish the perpetrators even if the person who brought it to our attention is potentially partly partisanly motivated. I guess for me these things work on several levels: (a) what the stated goal is, and why that makes things more (lower-case-d) democratic (b) to what extent we believe the stated goal would actually be achieved (c) what the immediate impact would be, and whether THAT made things more democratic (d) why it is that some party believes this would benefit them specifically So the initial laws under discussion here, assuming for a moment that the most cynical interpretation is true, look like this: (a) Stated goal is to reduce voter fraud. Reducing voter fraud, in and of itself, totally in isolation, is clearly a good thing (b) however, as there is almost none of the type of voter fraud that this law claims to address, it’s hard to see how this law would actually accomplish anything (c) in the meantime, the immediate impact (again, taking the most cynical view) is to make it disproportionately harder for certain groups of people to vote, thus reducing voter turnout only among specific groups. This, I argue, makes things clearly LESS democratic (d) and the republicans believe it would benefit them because of long-term systemic demographic issues that are unlikely to change Compare that to the Mass. thing: (a) stated goal is to switch senatorial elections from special-election-by-the-people (which is perfectly democratic) to appointnment-by-duly-elected-governor (also, basically, democratic). Or back the other way. (b) would presumably accomplish that goal (c) immediate impact is to precisely accomplish that goal (d) democrats believe it would benefit them because at that precise moment they happened to either control, or not control, the governorship. But it’s clearly just a temporary thing (assuming that the long term likelihood of a republican winning a statewide election for governor is about the same as the long term likelihood of a republican winning a statewide special senatorial election). So there’s the same level of purely partisan cynicism, but I think what’s different is that there’s isn’t the actively anti-democratic borderline-disenfranchisement. Now, other reasonable people can certainly disagree with my analysis, but my point is, as it so often is when arguing with you, that merely bringing up a vaguely comparable situation in the other direction at some point in the past 5 years doesn’t ever actually address the discussion at hand. See, Michael Moore being compared to the ACORN guy. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/657 "2011-09-16T17:46:32Z")
> [@Cyberhwk](#): > > I don’t see how it couldn’t favor the Republican candidate. You’re basically getting rid of the advantage Democrats have in taking all electors from California and New York (tempered by the Democratic vote elsewhere granted), but allowing the advantage small states have with their two Senators to remain. Hmm. I guess that’s true… as it basically is direct popular vote, but with each individual’s vote weighted by an amount inversely proportional to their state’s population, and I strongly suspect that more-populated-states are more blue than less-populated-states, on the whole. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/658 "2011-09-16T17:53:13Z")
> [@constanze](#): > > Um, Florida’s purge of the registration rolls, causing people with similar names to felons to be stricken, before the 2000 election, was a “rare exception”? Do you mean the Republican governors have stopped doing that now? Well, they did another one in [2004](http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/332) here and the Republican governor and legislature just implemented a whole bunch of sweeping changes that disenfranchise even more people, so they probably won’t bother in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![constanze](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f9ae1b/32.png) [@constanze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constanze)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/659 "2011-09-16T18:02:12Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Compare that to the Mass. thing: > > (a) stated goal is to switch senatorial elections from special-election-by-the-people (which is perfectly democratic) to appointnment-by-duly-elected-governor (also, basically, democratic). Or back the other way. > (b) would presumably accomplish that goal > (c) immediate impact is to precisely accomplish that goal > (d) democrats believe it would benefit them because at that precise moment they happened to either control, or not control, the governorship. But it’s clearly just a temporary thing (assuming that the long term likelihood of a republican winning a statewide election for governor is about the same as the long term likelihood of a republican winning a statewide special senatorial election). How come nobody said “In case somebody dies on the job, either we hold the elections for his successor 6 weeks after his death, or else each Senator appoints a reserve to take over in case of death”? I mean a lot of the people in the House and Senate are very old (white) guys, so the chance of suddenly dying is not-trivial, right? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2011, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180/660 "2011-09-16T18:39:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, they did another one in [2004](http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/332) here and the Republican governor and legislature just implemented a whole bunch of sweeping changes that disenfranchise even more people, so they probably won’t bother in 2012. [http://www.ocsea.org/generalnews/NewDirections/10\_060918.pdf](http://www.ocsea.org/generalnews/NewDirections/10_060918.pdf) Blackweell did the same damn thing in Ohio. The 12 states that got right wing Republican governors last election are after the same thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-gop-voting-reform/595180.md?page=34)