:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
There should be a hundred roll eyes here, but let’s be brief…
Because also Republican voters that are poor and minorities are benefited by making it easier to vote. Sure, there are no big numbers there, but that is because of a different problem with the Republican party.
I think that what you are missing is that it is wrong to make is harder for ANYONE to vote. It does not matter what your intentions are. Whether you were just trying to subvert the democratic process and harming minorities for personal gain, or you were subverting the democratic process for the purpose of harming minorities, it is wrong.
It is not wrong to make the vote more inclusive, regardless of whether or not it helps or hurts your personal ambition. That is promoting democracy.
I cannot understand why you see that as hypocrisy, when it is in fact very straightforward and consistent, unless the very principles of democracy are alien to your world view.
It appears to me that you are ignoring the point that the same legislators attacked these voting measures before requesting the racial data. Therefore, they were aiming at undoing the 1999 changes that made it easier for Democratic-leaning voters to vote.
It’s not. If you adopt the position that you favor making access to voting as easy as possible, then it’s not hypocritical to favor the 1999 expansion and disfavor the 2013 reversal.
Now: what about the reverse? If you favor making the vote something that requires some expenditure of effort (“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly…”) why is that racist?
I agree that it’s not hypocrisy – see my immediately previous post.
If you simply favor making voting easier, then it’s not hypocritical.
But I don’t agree it’s wrong to make it harder to vote. I think the country benefits when those who vote invest some effort in doing so, rather than doing so without sacrifice of time or energy.
This is not exculpatory, nor is it contradictory to my claim. They may have been strictly aiming to undo the '99 changes that helped Democrats. That doesn’t excuse actions that disproportionately harm black voters. From my understanding, the VRA makes it illegal for states and localities to make it harder for black people to vote. Maybe you think that’s too broad. It might mean that Democratic legislatures can essentially do anything to make it easier for all voters (including black voters) to vote, and then Republican legislatures can’t reverse these without running afoul of the VRA.
Considering US history, I see this as a good thing. Not because it helps Democrats, but because it protects black people’s right and access to vote, which has historically been under attack, and still is.
Then what did I say that’s hypocritical?
It’s not necessarily racist, though I believe it’s wrong. In this case, it does seem to violate the VRA, though, since it disproportionately affects black voters. And whether your intentions and motivations are racist or not (and I don’t believe yours are racist at all), I do believe that taking an action that disproportionately makes it harder for black people to vote is a racist action. If you find some way that makes it harder for everyone to vote, at a roughly equal level, then I don’t think that would be a racist bill, though I’d still think it’s wrong. I believe that non-racist people with no racist intentions can and do still sometimes say or do racist things.
Wouldn’t this require some kind of proportional voting effort system? I mean, if I already have all the documentation required for voting, and a means of transportation to get to my voting place, and already have time off in order to vote, all because of reasons not to do with voting, then I would seem to not be investing any particular effort as compared to someone who does have to go and actively arrange for those things.
For an American in the former situation, should additional barriers be placed in their way to voting, so that they must invest some effort in order to do so?
I feel precisely the opposite – that the country benefits when voting is so easy that everyone does it. This way, every election result could truly be called the will of the people. Elected leaders would have an actual popular mandate (or as close as we can get) – and bad leaders would be unable to stay in power by manipulating voting through access or other shenanigans.
I was registered to vote before I turned 18 and living with my parents (you can vote in primaries if you turn 18 before the general). My mother went with me to cast my first ballot. I don’t remember the process of registration and first voting well, but that’s because it was pretty damn easy.
I currently live about 200 feet away from my voting place. It is conveniently on my way to or from work. There is a small dog park next to it, so I can walk my dog over there and usually get one of the people I know there to watch her for the 5 minutes it takes for me to vote.
There is never a line. Once, when I got there, all the booths were in use, and I had to wait nearly a minute before I could vote.
Are you telling me that I shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
ETA: I feel guilty when I hear about people waiting in lines for hours and hours to cast their vote, and I think, “and my vote counts just as much as theirs?”
k9 and RT’s points are good ones – with only voting on a single day, for example, it’s necessarily more difficult for poor people to vote than rich people – it’s harder for poor people to get a day off; harder for them to get to the polls; they’re more likely to not have the right ID; etc. Do you disagree, Bricker?
That’s not hypocritical, not in the least. Facilitating exercise of voting rights is always good.
No, but virtually all aspects of life are easier for rich people than for poor.
Democratic majority legislatures use gerrymandering to retain their advantages. So do Republicans. Is that a shenanigan?.
Unless it is “esteemed too lightly.”
Speaking of which, Bricker, how do you feel about absentee ballots? It seems as though that is the ultimate in laziness, not even having to leave your home, no ID needed at all, and can be done anytime, usually as much as a month ahead. Do you feel that they should be done away with, because those using them are not esteeming their vote at all? (I would not include overseas servicemen, or those otherwise deployed out of their district.)
Yes, districts should not be made by the politicians elected by those districts, either way. If anything, I’ve always thought it would be interesting to have the minority party to be in charge of drawing up district lines, that way, at least there is no way for one to hold power while only having a minority of supporters, otherwise, a completely non-partisan panel should decide.
In Ohio we just added an amendment that created such a non-partisan commission for determine districts of state legislature, I voted for it happily. I don’t think it will be perfect, but I think it will be much more fair.
Yes – that should be banned too, if possible. Something like only north/south lines, east/west lines, county/city/locality demarcation lines, and rivers (and maybe some other lines I can’t think of) can separate districts. Or something better from more than 30 seconds of thought.
I would remove “no excuse” absentee ballots and require that good cause be shown: medical issues, deployed out of district, and the like.
I agree.
But you acknowledge that Democratically-controlled legislatures have done the opposite, right?
I’m totally fine with that. I’d be against a close to the election change for an id requirement as well due to the logistics of getting them on short notice being an undue burden. Like I said above, They can raise taxes to pay for people to go out into communities and assist people in getting ids and registered to vote, such that there would be a net GAIN in black people being eligible to vote and having an id. More than that, if we tied the ID to a fingerprint, and someone forgot their ID, we could set up a system where the person just puts down a thumb print as a check. There are all sorts of things we can do make it both trivially easy to identify people better and not have it harm voter turnout or contribute to voter suppression, but this rampant attitude from liberals that a basic picture id for identification is something that we just can’t ever expect blacks to have in the same rates is kind of offensive. What are they SAYING about black people? If they are less likely to have ids, we can fix that. And at the same time bring more people into BASIC functionality with modern society and civilization.
Certainly, and it’s wrong.
You still haven’t answered my questions from post #9885 regarding the “smoking gun”, as the appeals court called it – that the justification from NC was that voting was too easy for black people.
“Expect” has nothing to do with it, you moron. The research shows what actually happens.
Your attempts to suggest I’m a racist are because I pay attention to what actually happens, and are idiotic.
This is probably the stupidest attempt at a liberal hypocrisy gotcha I’ve ever seen. Of COURSE I’m okay with making voting easier and more convenient! Yes, life is always easier for rich folks than poor folks; when it comes to vital parts of public life, of COURSE I’m in favor of making it relatively easier for poor folks to participate!
There’s no hypocrisy here at all, and it’s appalling that you’d try to see some.