100% agree. I don’t know why the Democrats are so kid-gloves with their opponents. It’s not like any of them are treating the Democrats with any. Are they afraid of insulting swing voters? The whole “deplorables” thing did not work out so well, but “Shut-up, man!” was brilliant! I see no issue with throwing the insurrection, conspiracy theories, COVID dismissal, and any number of other fact-based issues right in their faces. Where’s today’s in-your-face Democrats, like James Carville?
Carville, when he is on tv now, is about how wokeism is hurting the D party. He’s not an in your face progressive.
I’m not sure he ever was. I think one has to go back to LBJ and his “in your guts you know he’s nuts” to find that type of mainstream Democrat.
Now it seems there won’t be a vote on BBB until next year. I think they have to shift priorities and work on voting rights. I don’t care how much good BBB does or doesn’t do, it’s useless if democracy dies. Manchin and Sinema have to understand that democracy is more important than the filibuster and to carve out an exception for voting rights.
That’s awesome since you aren’t getting any of that.
I’m extremely curious to know how one would go about implementing your proposed remedy.
This kind of comment has been made several times, but I don’t mean that at that moment go back in time to vote. I mean the voter should learn the lesson for the next election. In that election they may have no choice but to wait in the long line, but in the next election they should look into early voting to avoid that situation. And even if early voting sites have lines, they will certainly be a lot shorter than the lines on election day.
Since most of those voters don’t read the SDMB, what is your strategy to get them to vote better next time?
There shouldn’t be hours long lines. That means you need more voting locations.
You not wanting people to vote because you don’t agree with them is the problem. That mindset is poisonous to a free society.
Why can’t the local govt learn the lesson that they need to provide more voting resources in order to prevent long lines?
I really don’t get your defense of anti-voting measures here.
“Provide more resources” = “cost more money,” which is anathema to many people, except when it comes to the military budget, whose financing is magical and has no effect on why we can’t afford to staff polling places.
Or better staffed or equipped voting locations anyway. Point being, the fault of the long lines lies with the local board of elections, not with the voters, as some anti-democracy advocates would try to imply.
I mean, there are people I don’t really want to vote because I think that they will vote “the wrong way”. But, there’s a big gulf between not wanting them to vote and actually trying to prevent them from voting.
It’s an anathema to the same people who coincidentally are also working to suppress the vote. To those who want to increase voter participation in our elections, it is but one of many things that we are willing to spend more money on.
And, to be fair, it doesn’t need to cost more money. How about we just even things out? If a place has short lines, take resources from them, and give it to precincts with long lines. When I go to vote, there is never a wait.
I’m sure that, in the name of saving money, those who currently enjoy short waits will be willing to start waiting in lines for a few hours as well.
You are aware that not every state offers early voting? You are aware of that?
Then they should just move to a state that does.
/s
I’m certainly not against making voting easier. As a voter, I don’t want to spend time in lines either. But I can’t get behind this idea that these changes are disenfranchising voters. If someone decides not to vote because it’s less convenient than before, that is the person disenfranchising their own vote.
I’ve thought the same thing. There should be a requirement that voting time should be roughly equivalent no matter where you vote. So if one area has 5 hour lines and another area has 5 minute lines, resources should be shifted so that the lines are about the same in both areas. But the Republicans aren’t going to implement that policy since they do better with lower turnout in dense areas.
Again, if these rules do not reduce votes from the areas where “the enemy” lives, then what is the point? You keep trying to have it both ways. You want to openly approve of rules that only harm those that you don’t like, but you don’t want to admit that it isn’t fair and doesn’t result in accurate elections where the actual will of the people is reflected. You want the effects of these rules, but do not want to feel responsible for those effects, or to admit what the GOP is doing with these rules.
I imagine it is as transparent for everyone else reading this thread as it is for me. If more people would take ownership of their positions and the resulting effects of those positions, then maybe we wouldn’t be in the position we are all in today with our country on the vulnerable democracy list and zero ability to address any of our national problems.
How about if they decide not to vote because they were told that they would be killed if they did? It would be really inconvenient to be killed, so many people would simply decide not to vote. That’s on them, right?
There are people who work for minimum wage and commute by bus (which takes a lot of time). Some of these people also have kids. They simply do not have multi-hour blocks that they can spare in order to vote.
It’s not a matter of “oh, this is annoying,” so much as “well, I can vote, or I can pay the electric bill.”
I’m guessing that you are not poor, and are possibly not aware of just how difficult it is to take time off. Yes, there are laws requiring employees to be able to take a few hours to vote, but that’s not enough.
In my own situation (completely different), this year I had to vote right at seven a.m. because I had rather stupidly neglected to vote early, and between the 80-minute commute each way and an eight-hour day, it wasn’t otherwise possible to be at the polling place in my neighbourhood during the 12-hour window they were open. Fortunately, a short line meant this was pretty easy.
The military budget is federal. Does the federal government pay for polling places?