So why is Ohio trying to stop Sunday voting? Budget cuts?
Whether legal or not, it’s still wrong (the OH attempts to stop Sunday voting), and just a modern (and perhaps legal) version of poll taxes, literacy and citizenship tests, and the like – actions meant to dissuade/deter/prevent certain demographics from voting. It’s very wrong, and decent people on both sides should be highly criticial of such moves.
Is New York wrong to not offer Sunday voting at all?
They’re free to stop it. You’re free to disapprove. The courts are free to uphold their efforts.
And I’m free to point this out repeatedly.
I tell you, it was a boon that you gave me, pointing out how any point can be answered by illuminating the freedom we all have to respond, or not. Three cheers for freedom! (Or two, or four --whatever you feel free to do.)
So Sunday’s a random choice, then? They could as easily tried to curb Monday voting?
In law school do they have special classes whose syllabus reads “Forget everything you thought you knew about morality, common-sense, true justice, or human decency. You’re going to be a lawyer” ?
So presumably back in say 1952, such laws were in no way discriminatory. And all those people complaining about them had no legitimate beef.
They were used to help defray the cost of holding the election and indicated a voters commitment to the society to which he is voting. If a voter can’t be bothered to pull together a few bucks to pay the poll tax he clearly isn’t motivated enough to vote. I mean its not they were asking him to send out for his birth certificate, and take a day off work to drive 150 miles and wait in line at the DMV or anything.
“Why We Build the Wall” from the recent musical Hadestown
Spoiler: its all about Freedom!
At this stage, I’m gathering details to inform my opinion. If someone has a cite that Sunday voting in Ohio was very expensive (ie having to pay state employees double overtime) and was of questionable utility (ie only one voter in 100,000 was taking advantage), I’d like to see it.
Yes. But, obviously not unconstitutional. There are people who are either at work or commuting the entire hours of voting from 6AM to 9PM on Tuesdays.
I would favor Sunday elections and easier access to absentee balloting (for people working on election day) across the country.
Nowadays Sunday, instead of being a day of rest, is a day for performing chores, shopping and running errands for many, if not most working people. And obviously, there are people working Sundays to serve the other working folks. So they need another day.
I wasn’t saying anything about New York, unless New York also took action to stop Sunday voting that had previously existed. I was judging the Ohio government’s actions to stop Sunday voting. That is wrong.
Do you disagree that Ohio’s actions were a legal version/relation to the old poll taxes/literacy tests/etc. that were used to try and reduce black turnout?
Bryan, try and keep up, won’t you? Its not about practicality and utillity, its about freedom! And simply because our lesser minds cannot grasp how restrictions and obstructions lead to more freedom just means we cannot understand the subtle workings of the Republican mind!
Freedom squandered on the feckless and lazy is wasted, cheapened. They will not get any value from it, because of who they are. But the responsible, the propertied, those who have “skin in the game”…their freedom is cheapened as well!
So, you see? It is a net loss of freedom, the undeserving cannot use it, while the comfortable and propertied will have less of it!
So Bricker is saying the rich SHOULD pay higher taxes?
Well, after all, its their country! We just live here.
Hardly! Don’t forget that Buffett’s secretary pays more than Buffett in percentage terms, when all taxes are included.
The point is: The People With Skin In The Game want your skin.
Maybe it’s like Broadway producing, except “never put your own money in the show” becomes “never put your own skin in the game.”
No, New York has never offered Sunday voting. And last year, they. . . still didn’t. Never discussed it, didn’t start it.
So my question is: are we talking about a one-way rachet? A state doesn’t have to offer it, but if they do, it’s wrong to stop?
So New York, which doesn’t offer it, is not wrong? But Ohio, who ALSO doesn’t offer it, is wrong?
I have no idea.
You don’t get to impose your ideas of morality on me. You’re immoral. Your ideas are immoral. Why should we let such an immoral person as yourself try to craft laws?
I think it would be a positive thing to offer it.
I think it would be good for New York to offer it. Taking it away once it’s in place is a bad action.
Really? This mystifies you? In all seriousness?
It should be noted, that you’re the rancid, hypocrite prick that hates poor people while walking around with a crucifix up your ass.