And they don’t have the right to make a law that prevents us from tuning out speech that we don’t wish to hear, OR to decline to attend/pay attention to church services/street preachers.
Let me know if he ever produces a substance with which to write answers to the questions that have been put to him.
It should be possible to threaten people with jail for not doing it?
They should pay people for doing it more than one day in a row?
Okay.
You guys are desperate if that idea sounds appealing. Let’s just say that most of us Republicans believe that voting is more than easy enough for the minimally motivated.
And Steve, I get like ten people disagreeing with me on an average subject, I can’t answer every single question. I respond to whatever is most in need of answering. If you want answers badly, ask me again and I’ll answer them. I didn’t know it was so important to you.
He never said it sounded appealing, you fucking dunce.
He was referring to the fact that it was YOU, in a discussion of policies regarding voting, who compared voting to jury duty.
His point was that our society FORCES people to serve on juries. If you don’t turn up for jury service, you’ll get into trouble, and people sometimes end up on juries against their will.
If you’re someone who believes, as you do, that voting is already “more than easy enough for the minimally motivated,” then it is fucking retarded to compare voting with jury duty, because even the completely non-motivated are compelled to appear for jury duty.
And you’re committed to making registering to vote just difficult enough to compensate for that ease for people whose resources don’t meet their existing needs let alone meeting that new bar.
Oh, there are many more than that. Most of us are too dumbfounded by your stupidity to respond.
I’m confused. Registering to vote is now too hard? And where is the new bar? As I pointed out, no matter how easy Democrats try to make it to vote, unmotivated people still don’t vote.
I’m still waiting for the abolition of midterms to become a civil rights issue. I’m sure it’s coming.
So what? This has absolutely no impact on what I said. More people voting is a good thing. The fact that making more people vote is good for one party means nothing. In fact, it means that that party probably deserves more influence than it’s getting. And you know what? If the republican party actively tried to make it easier for explicitly their base to vote (say, by expanding polling in rural Mississippi and setting up more polling stations), I’d be saying the same thing. It is inherently good within the context of the system. The fact that it is somehow advantageous for voters who may swing one way or another doesn’t make it wrong - you’re still making it easier for more people to get their voices heard.
But the republicans aren’t doing that. They’re trying to make it harder to vote. Putting more hurdles in the way. And then they complain when democrats try to make it easier. You do realize that the USA has fucking pathetic voter turnout, right? I’d call that a problem. A bit more of a problem to the democratic process than a handful of cases of voter fraud.
This from the advocate of the party that used the FCC to shut down individual words and images that they did not want to hear or see.
The easier it is to vote, the more people vote. Turnout has been trending upwards. I know the Republicans don’t like it, but most of us see it as a good thing in a democracy when more people participate.
Of all your ridiculous predictions, this one is up there with the silliest.
Expanding the numbers of voters would force both parties to be responsive to voters beyond just their bases.
CMC fnord!
Who’s old enough to remember “Rockefeller” Republicans!
Actually, Republicans have done just fine in high turnout elections, because the Republicans have been the drivers of increasing turnout, the 2008 and 2012 elections excepted.
This is one of those cases where I’ll be happy to be wrong. Who knew that having an election on Election Day was inherently racist?
:smack:
Trying to restrict things like early voting because they result in more black people voting is definitely racist. And many Republicans, like the one cited, are pretty explicit in saying this.
There’s a long history of trying to make it so fewer black people vote. This is just the latest incarnation.
MacCat, that’s voting problems, and those should be addressed. Two hours should be the max waiting time(yes, it should be even shorter, but let’s work with what’s achievable. Government and wait times go hand in hand.)
Early voting and same day registration address a different issue entirely. Those are designed to lure the unmotivated into voting, based on the mistaken assumption that voting isn’t easy enough. But as I pointed out, all of these people do more complicated and less convenient things all the time. For most people, voting is just not that important unless something has captured their imagination, as the Obama campaign did. Voting didn’t become harder between 2008 and 2012, pushing turnout down, and black turnout didn’t increase because voting became easier. Elections have always been about motivation to come out and vote. Even going strictly to mail-in ballots, you get an increase in turnout, but there are still actually a huge number of people too unmotivated to find a frickin’ pen.
BTW, I might be crazy to predict the abolition of midterms being a civil rights issue, but mail in voting might be a Democratic cause pretty soon, given that some states already do it. Problem is,it’s also subject to very real fraud.
There’s no evidence that early voting increases black turnout. There’s little or no evidence that it increases turnout at all.
You’re right there’s a long history of voter suppression. 100% by Democrats. What changed is that once Democrats needed the black vote they continued their manipulation of the system in the other direction: now it was necessary to make voting even easier. And anyone who opposed this was racist.
The long waits were in Democratic-voting precincts. Republicans had no trouble voting. This was almost surely deliberate. Don’t ask me for a cite – I get too sad and angry reviewing this stuff.
(Not angry at Republicans; that’s just nature: Republican leaders need to defecate on America the same way wasps need to sting. I’m sad and angry that the American people didn’t rise up in anger about it.)
Note that Kerry would have won the election if he carried Ohio.
Note that Bricker would regard the travesty in Ohio as democracy at its finest. Anything legal is permitted. And he’d certainly find the election fraud to be “legal” – there’s always an ambiguous adverb or misplaced comma for him to pimp.
This is completely false. There’s plenty of evidence that early voting in states like North Carolina significantly boosted black turnout (and overall turnout) in 2008 and 2012.
Also false, even if we don’t include these latest Republican-led efforts. And referring to the Democratic party before Civil Rights is irrelevant, because the party’s positions were essentially reversed on this issue before then.
This directly contradicts your first statement in your post. It does boost black turnout, which is certainly a reason why Democrats support it, and why Republicans oppose it. The difference is that trying to reduce turnout, as Republicans have, is associated with restricting the rights of black people. Trying to boost turnout is not associated with restricting anyone’s rights.
In Australia it is like jury duty, i.e., compulsory. Maybe we should take a look at that.