I think we can agree (I hope) that “be good” is not the same as “not be bad.”
So I’m asking directly if it’s bad, or immoral, for New York to have never offered Sunday voting.
There are dozens, or hundreds, of votes involved. I can’t say with any confidence that a single purpose animated each person.
Nor can you. At least you can’t say it truthfully.
Another highly immoral person adds his views!
As a learned scholar recently lectured us here, the burden of proof rests on the advocate of change. If New York does not offer Sunday voting, any one who seeks to change that must prove his case assertively and definitively. Conversely, if Ohio did offer such an accommodation, anyone seeking to rescind that opportunity must prove his case assertively and definitively. Change, which is by its very nature uncertain and dangerous, must defer to the default position of things as they are.
I have this on the best authority, which is likely why I so firmly reject it.
How am I immoral? I’m not the one who laughs at poor folk having to jump through hoops to vote.
Is it the vulgar language? I don’t think that bears specifically on my moral character. Is it that I don’t kowtow to your made-up God? Hardly seems fair, since you only believe in Him because you were brainwashed by your parents.
My mom just wasn’t very good at brainwashing. Don’t hold that against me.
When are you two going to stab and make up?
Someone has to punish him, or he’ll keep shitting on the rug. 
Bricker, your [DEL][COLOR=“Black”]justice[/DEL][/COLOR] morality would freeze beer.
CMC fnord!
They say a stopped clock is right twice per day. . . a record you no doubt find both admirable and unattainable.
This is one of those times.
Unfortunately, your insight deserted you after only a fleetingly short visit.
Yes, those seeking a change in Ohio’s rules are the ones who bear the burden of persuasion.
What are Ohio’s rules at present?
I can imagine it being positive, if:
Those two conditions should be considered when cutting back on government services. In this case, Bricker’s response seems limited to “They’re doing it because they can”, then pretending to wonder why this is unsatisfactory.
It might be a little bad. If it is, it’s not nearly as bad as taking it away once it’s in place.
But we don’t need to know every individual’s motivations – we just need to know the motivations behind those who introduced and fought hardest for it. Based on various statements by Republican supporters, and based on actual fraudulent voting statistics, the “this would decrease Democratic turnout and help Republicans” motivation seems to be larger than the “this would prevent voter fraud” motivation.
Sure, but I don’t see any evidence this was the case in OH.
No “insight” deserted me, it was flung aside as it well deserved. How much clearer could I make it that your alleged “principle” was nothing more than a self-serving bit of rationalization?
The interests of justice and equality are best served by making voting as easy and convenient as possible. That people who live in economically disadvantaged areas spend vastly more time trying to exercise their voting rights is a shame, compelling reason enough for change. That this shameful state is preserved by Republicans hoping to maintain an undeserved electoral advantage is an affront to our principles.
Perhaps “Sunday voting” is not the best way to attain this goal. We are open to suggestions. Perhaps you will point out for us some of the suggestions that honest conservatives have offered to ensure that voting access is as freely available as possible? Why, there must be dozens of them! Well, ok, several. Some.
One?
I agree with you that NY State not offering Sunday and other extended voting hours is not a good thing. Importantly, I also disagree with the way NY State handles absentee voting. Being busy at work is not an excuse enough for an absentee ballot unless you are in the military or a poll worker. That does not seem fair to me.
Within the last month I had my first experience as a vote inspector in NY State and I begin to understand the complexities and expenses necessary to extend voting hours. Each voting machine is controlled by four people, two from each major party. Plus each polling place has an additional two people overseeing the operation and running the handicapped voting station. Just getting enough trained people available for additional days of voting would be difficult.
I suppose an eight hour voting period on the Sunday before an election would be workable. But a full 16 hour day would be damned hard. Also, the issue of security around the machines would have to be dealt with. No small matter since they cannot be left in place. The polling place I work at is a firestation where they roll a truck outside all day to make room for us. Can’t ask them to do that Sunday through Tuesday.
I think the future is with the on-line voting system used in Oregon. Clearly those without computers would have to be accommodated, but I’m sure there are work-arounds.
I have no problem with not reflexively assuming that any modification to voting procedure is a deliberate attempt to disadvantage voters likely to favour one’s rivals. I propose that control of how elections are managed be taken from elected officials to minimize conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Why?
The population of New York is 19.6 million people.
The population of Ohio is only 11.5 million people.
You’re asserting that it’s worse to take away 11.5 million people’s opportunity to vote early than it is to never offer it to 19.6 million people.
You’re asserting that next year, when both Ohio and New York don’t offer early voting to their respective populations – identical schemes – that Ohio is worse.
That’s a hard claim to defend.
Have you any evidence to support this claim? One may assert that by analogy you’ve claimed that it would be even worse to remove early voting from an even smaller state. If Wyoming took early voting off the table (not that they even have it) would that be worse, or better? (Wyoming population is about 600,000 people, if that helps).
What’s the exact moral rule in play?
Are you open to analysis using metrics other than (or at least in addition to) total population like, say, population density?
Sure.
If there’s some person per square meter figure above which it becomes immoral to not offer early voting, I’d be fascinated to read about how, when, and by whom it was discovered or derived.
Why does morality have to enter into it? Just start with some basic premises, like democracy is weakened if some citizens are prevented from voting. Then calculate the effect of altering the voting timings or procedures and calculate if prevention is occurring and if so, if the level sufficiently low to be worth whatever purpose is served by the alteration.
If the alteration is not for any particular reason, why bother with it?
I suggest that question is better directed to the discussion participants that first evoked morality.
I’d rather ask you, since you invoked demographics, comparing population totals in NY and OH. There may be purely pragmatic reasons why Ohio needs Sunday voting (thus it should not be ended) and why New York does not (thus no impetus to introduce it).
Or was the demographic question just another tangent?