No state has a residency requirement longer than 30 days. The Supreme Court found in 1972 that longer waiting periods were unconstitutional.
Not sure what you’re asking. I think the point is that there WAS a policy, and then it was changed, and then it was changed again, but for purely temporarily relevant political reasons, not because someone decided that, philosophically, a special election was better or worse than a gubernatorial appointment.
It’s true that there have been few significant election fraud cases recently. But the hysteria over even the mildest efforts to verify eligibility to vote makes you wonder whether the Democratic Party has some kind of secret to keep.
Correction: There have been no *voter *fraud cases of any kind recently. *Election *fraud, though? Absolutely.
What sort of secret might you imagine that to be?
And have you also considered that somebody needs to *support *the basic process of democracy itself, and how that might explain the indignance in itself?
The Republicans’ motives for limiting participation in democracy, and the conservatives’ history of doing so, are, or should be, obvious, however.
The outrage by the Republican yahoos over not getting a Senate seat handed to them without having earned it, against the people’s will as expressed in the most recent election, is and remains quite palpable. However, it is also understandable only in the light of their desire for partisan advantage in opposition to the basic principle of democracy. They could not simply be happy that Kennedy was dead.
Uhh, what? Assuming we’re talking about that special election, didn’t (much as it pains me to admit it) the R candidate win fair and square? I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=2809 here is one. I believe her power and celebrity allowed her to get away with it.
Um, no, in short. But if you’re that deeply ignorant of the facts, I’m not going to waste time trying to spoonfeed you. You can go learn for yourself.
It would be really refreshing to see even one of the GOP loyalists here acknowledge that the Democrats’ partisan interests, in voter registration in general and not just Massachusetts law in particular, are in *alignment *with the fundamental principles of democracy that our nation stands for, while their own are in *opposition *to it. It would even be refreshing to see even one of them acknowledge that there is such a thing as the fundamental principles of democracy. We know from extensive experience that **Bricker **can’t conceive of a principle higher and more important than his party’s partisan advantage, but can any others?
Oh, wait, you said “*special *election” - did you mean the one where Scott Brown was elected to the Senate from MA? I was referring to 2000 and Florida. That’s pretty much beyond factual question, and was from the start.
Right, that’s what I was talking about. I thought.
The thing that bugs me so much about 2000 and Florida, and I think we might agree here, is not so much that things were decided the way they were (although I’m unhappy about that for any number of reasons), but that so many Republicans seem to be just smug about it… “haha, we won, you lost, get over it”. It’s at some level reasonable to have an attitude of “it’s done, Bush is the legal president, let’s move on”, but I don’t see how anyone can look at that clusterfuck and see it as anything other than a massive blot on American democracy, regardless if one’s preferred candidate won.
Gore Won Florida Gore won but the recount he asked for may not have been enough. Several newspapers, including NYT , ordered a recount and it came up Gore winning.
That actually doesn’t bother me as such. Children are children. Things that do bother me:
-
The attitude you mention reveals that a wide percentage of the population no longer takes seriously the need to defend and build democracy itself, and some aren’t even aware of that responsibility. Some actually denigrate those who do try to remind them of what we have historically stood for and fought and died for.
-
The Supreme Court justices who acted based on pure partisanship, against the Constitution they were sworn to uphold (the “not a precedent” clause, anyone?) have never yet acknowledged what they did.
-
Nothing of substance has been done to prevent it from happening again. Disenfranchisement is still about as extensive as before, and vote counting is still about as susceptible to fraud as it was then. In fact, they may be even better entrenched, thanks to the irresponsible attitudes we have been discussing.
You mean Bush winning right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
I’m a Florida Republican and I think it was fortunate that Gore lost mostly because of errors in Democratic run counties.
My boss asked me why I was upset about the results when my guy won. When you are trying to run a democratic government, then their are more important thing to worry about than who winds the election.
But more newspapers came to the opposite conclusion:
According to Wikipedia:
Your boy lost. Suck it up.
Now that’s funny.
“The thing that bugs me so much about 2000 and Florida, and I think we might agree here, is not so much that things were decided the way they were (although I’m unhappy about that for any number of reasons), but that so many Republicans seem to be just smug about it… “haha, we won, you lost, get over it”. It’s at some level reasonable to have an attitude of “it’s done, Bush is the legal president, let’s move on”, but I don’t see how anyone can look at that clusterfuck and see it as anything other than a massive blot on American democracy, regardless if one’s preferred candidate won.”
Amazing how prescient I am.
Politics isn’t sports, DAMNIT!
Politics is about the future of this country.
It’s about whether or not our families have enough to survive on.
It’s about whether or not we can feed and provide medical care for ourselves and our children.
It’s about whether or not those who maybe don’t quite fit the cultural norms get the same opportunities and dignity as everyone else.
It’s about whether or not we destroy our physical environment and resources, or leave them for future generations to continue to use and enjoy.
Saying things like “Your boy lost. Suck it up” is not only unproductive. It’s childish and it belittles the importance of the political process in this country.
It belittles the importance of political dialog in solving our problems.
The right certainly doesn’t “suck it up” when they lose. They do just the opposite, and to a ludicrous extreme.
And your boy was an incompetent moron who showed how deadly, financially ruinous, surprise, and outright evil your philosophy is.
The unemployed, and grieving war dead families thank you for voting for their situation.
Future generations thank you for the damage you did the environment, you selfish evil piece of shit.
So the GOP have decided Nebraska, one of the few states who allow split electoral votes by district, needs to be consolidated. This is the exact opposite of what the GOP is looking to do in Pennsylvania.
Can anyone explain how a principled party could come to the decision that different structures are appropriate? I thought they were arguing they were just trying to further democracy in Pennsylvania. Is it fair to say then they are looking to halt democracy in Nebraska?
Can we call this hypocritical by your definitions Bricker?
All perfectly legal.