adaher sure has a strange, or shall I say perhaps a constrained view of democracy, doesn’t he?
I think he might see it better if he crawled out from under that tremendous pile of straw he’s playing with.
Here is the issue as I see it. This is not a hate-the-rich thing. I don’t hate the rich. I wish there were more of them. I think this would be a better country if for every billionaire there were a thousand millionaires instead. But the rich know one thing most of us don’t and that is that past a certain point, money becomes redundant in terms of impact on one’s lifestyle. You may own a thousand pairs of shoes, but you still only got two feet. It is when that money is turned to the acquisition of political power that it becomes fair game for discussion within the political arena, especially when the newly acquired power is used to game the system in service of the accumulation of more wealth. This cycle is antithetical to democracy and, more than anything described elsewhere here is what leads to banana Republicanism.
Well, this commentator believes the recent federal court decision in Wisconsin might ultimately scuttle the whole thing.
I think you’ll find we consistently favor maximum voter turnout no matter who the voters are.
This. I’m the leftiest of lefties, but I want EVERYONE who’s eligible to do so to vote. Yes, Democrats do much better when overall turnout is high, but that’s a side effect, not a reason to champion easy voting. I don’t care if high turnout were to help Republicans. I want everyone who’s eligible to have a hand in deciding how the country is to be run.
Bricker can stuff his insinuations.
I’ll refine it a little and say I want everyone who is engaged and knowledgeable enough to want to vote to be able to, easily and with no undue burden. There really are people, though, who just don’t know shit because they just don’t care, and others whose interest is frivolous. IMHO it’s better for democracy *not *to have them involved, and to let the big decisions get made for them by those of us who *do *take a real interest.
Someday you may understand that absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence, and that’s even MORE true when talking about SDMB posters’ reactions to events.
I mean, it’s bad enough for your argument to be “but a democrat did it too, and your reaction to that was X”. But your argument is “but a democrat did something vaguely comparable, and you did NOT condemn it”. Because of course the only reason that anyone ever does NOT condemn something on the SDMB is because they approve of it.
Or is it now OK for me to follow you around, find every situation in which you express an opinion about anything, then find a comparable situation that happened somewhere in the world ever which you did NOT express any opinion about, and accuse you of hypocrisy?
This is not the first time elucidator has heard of the Massachusets shenanigans.
There’s the germ of an interesting debate hidden under your baseless vitriol. So suppose there’s a town which is split very close to 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, so that typically control of the city council swaps back and forth every 8 or 10 years as the political pendulum swings around. So at one point, the party that’s in power says “hmm, I don’t like this pendulum swinging, I want to ensure that we are ALWAYS in power”, and they pass some laws modifying how elections are held, with the 100% purely partisan motive of increasing their own odds of winning. Is that “ok”? Is that anti-democratic?
Well, one important question is certainly what kind of laws they’re passing. Assuming the laws are prima facie neutral (ie, they’re not just passing a law saying that no Democrats can be on the ballot), what kinds of things might those laws do? Well, two obvious ones are:
-add obstacles to voting
and
-remove obstacles to voting
The current debate is about the first type of law. The view on the left is that these laws are adding obstacles to voting, obstacles which are specifically designed to disproportionately impact one party’s voters. I (along with many in this thread) decry these laws as anti-democratic.
But what if it was the second kind of law? What if the Democrats were in power and passed a law saying that free public busing would be provided between all public libraries and voting places, and some quick demographic analysis showed that this would have a huge impact in the inner city (overwhelmingly Democratic) and almost no impact in the suburbs (overwhelmingly Republican)? Is that really different from a law adding obstacles?
Honestly, that’s a tough question. And it’s because it’s so tough, because I’m so troubled by the idea of an elected body meddling with its own elections, I think the right solution is to just remove the temptation entirely, and put control over all elections in the hands of non-partisan non-elected commissions.
That said, even if the motives are 100% cynical, removing obstacles to voting is still better than adding obstacles to voting, just because, well, just because it is. Making voting harder is an insult to the very substance of Democracy, which making voting easier is not. So in this case the Democrats are on the virtuous side of the issue. It’s possible that they’re there only by coincidence, and they would be just as happy as the Republicans to be taking a adding-obstacles-to-voting approach if they thought it would work for them… but that’s not the world we live in.
This is the point at which a ratfucker will step in to say “a republic, not a democracy.”
Not if you separate partisan advantage from your thinking, and instead look at what strengthens democracy and what weakens it. Me, I go with strengthening it.
Problem is, it’s hard to find people to serve on it who are disinterested but not uninterested.
Not really a coincidence. That comes from being the party that nominally represents The Masses against The Aristocracy, to cartoonishly oversimplify it. Democracy *means *being governed by the more, rather than the few.
Which seems to mean whatever they want it to mean at the moment, but usually it means “This is a federal state, not a unitary state,” which is a very different distinction.
Well, whether we have or do not have voter-ID laws will make no difference anyway in whether those uninterested citizens turn out. No one here is suggesting universal compulsory voting like they have in Australia.
Actually I’ve come to the conclusion that what they mean most of the time is that “It’s okay for some people to be denied the right to vote or have their votes be given less effectiveness because we literally are not a democracy so there is no constitutional requirement to give everyone an equal vote.”
So? Since when is anyone obligated to post about everything they ever hear about?
If he posted somewhere saying that the he SUPPORTED the Democratic action, AND if someone (you or someone else) actually made an argument demonstrating similarities between those shenanigans and voter ID laws (because things that kind of sound similar aren’t automatically similar just because Bricker mentions them in the same post) then you have a strong case that Elucidator is a hypocrite. Whatever that buys you.
But you’re completely avoiding the meat of my post, which is that evidence of absence != absence of evidence. If Elucidator has never posted about that issue (and, if he has, then I will withdraw these remarks) then you DO NOT KNOW WHAT HIS OPINION OF THEM IS (even if he has an opinion about them), and you can not draw inferences.
(However, this is probably the fourth or so cycle of this conversation coming around to this exact argument between me and you in this very thread, so I’m skeptical it will get anywhere.)
Day-um, Counselor, how many times we been over this? I described the events as being “sordid”, you replied that even though that word had connotations of disapproval, it wasn’t sufficient disapproval, so that was pretty much the same thing as approval. Which is horseshit.
C’mon, Rick! Play hard, play fair. You’ll still lose, because you are wrong, but you’ll be the better man for it. And when you boil it down, that’s…
WINNING!!
I don’t think it’s quite that simple. Would you support a law that tripled the number of polling stations… but was written in such a way that the new polling stations would, for apparently neutral reasons, end up almost entirely in regions that demographically leaned towards the party that was proposing that law?
Once again, Bricker, your intellectual dishonesty disgraces the legal profession.
What is the neutral reason? If it is to equalize voting conditions overall (so that now all voters would have similar wait times, for example) then sure.
I’ve never seen Bricker decry the actions of Grand Moff Tarkin in the Alderaan system.
I can only assume he supports the killing of billions of unarmed people to demonstrate the power of a battle station.
For shame Bricker. For shame.
This post brought to you by Bricker Brand, Lying A-hole Logic™.