6 ms·

How can you argue that the right is against the concentration of power when it works to limit voting systematically among people more likely to vote democratic

How can you argue that the right is against the concentration of power when it works to limit voting systematically among people more likely to vote democratic (young people, poor people, counties where people who aren't white are a majority), as well as to gerrymander districts? There are many ways to concentrate power: The federal government is one, but it can also act as a check on states concentrating power, like states passing voter ID laws, closing DMVs to prevent state ids from being obtained, etc. Ultimately all political power should be derived from informed American citizens. Whenever any political group works to undermine the ability of Americans to choose their representatives by disenfranchising them or misleading them, and when it works on concentrating their votes using gerrymandering such that legislative bodies are not representational of their constituents, they undermine our system of democracy. edits: typos and added an "and" for clarification.

gozur88 10y ago
>How can you argue that the right is against the concentration of power when it works to limit voting systematically among people more likely to vote democratic (young people, poor people, counties where people who aren't white are a majority)... Because you've mischaracterized the situation. Making sure only people who are entitled to vote actually vote is about insuring the integrity of the system. >...as well as to gerrymander districts? This happens on both sides of the aisle. To pretend only "the right" is doing it is to be oblivious to observed reality.
- eschaton 10y ago
  Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise. You can't look at policies and their arguments in isolation, you have to look at them in context. In context their purpose is clear.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    >Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise. No they aren't. This is nonsense from people who are benefiting from voter fraud.
    - chillwaves 10y ago
      > people who are benefiting from voter fraud. Where is the evidence that this occurs in any meaningful number at all? If you want to claim someone is benefiting, then you must have some evidence that it even occurs.
      - gozur88 10y ago
        Since we're demanding evidence, do you have any evidence Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voters?
        pjc50 10y ago
        It's all there in the litigation if you care to look. You could start at e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tracker-new-election-laws-suits-challenging-them https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tra... and get to e.g. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa6a0001 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa... "After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data , the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. "
bzbarsky 10y ago
Unfortunately, both sides work to systematically limit voting by their opponents, albeit using different tactics because the targets of suppression are different. See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-... for some details.
- chillwaves 10y ago
  The two are no where near equivalent.
  - bzbarsky 10y ago
    Why not? Note that I personally don't think "equivalent" is even a useful category to consider here: the methods of voter suppression are different enough that comparing them in any meaningful way is a serious research project at best. But apparently people keep feeling like we can place an agreed-on linear ordering of some sort on the horribleness of political party behavior. For people who think that, I would like to know why they think that and why they think that their particular ordering is the "right" one. My preferred outcome, obviously, would be if people made decisions about this stuff in terms of actual reasons other than "it's better for my chosen party". At least then there would be a basis for discussion and perhaps a possibility to change minds... I'm not holding my breath.

gozur88 10y ago

>How can you argue that the right is against the concentration of power when it works to limit voting systematically among people more likely to vote democratic (young people, poor people, counties where people who aren't white are a majority)... Because you've mischaracterized the situation. Making sure only people who are entitled to vote actually vote is about insuring the integrity of the system. >...as well as to gerrymander districts? This happens on both sides of the aisle. To pretend only "the right" is doing it is to be oblivious to observed reality.

eschaton 10y ago
Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise. You can't look at policies and their arguments in isolation, you have to look at them in context. In context their purpose is clear.
- gozur88 10y ago
  >Actually, things like voter ID requirements and DMV closings are specifically about putting up barriers to voting for people who do have the right to vote, by making it (in some cases) much harder to meet the requirements to exercise their franchise. No they aren't. This is nonsense from people who are benefiting from voter fraud.
  - chillwaves 10y ago
    > people who are benefiting from voter fraud. Where is the evidence that this occurs in any meaningful number at all? If you want to claim someone is benefiting, then you must have some evidence that it even occurs.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      Since we're demanding evidence, do you have any evidence Republicans are deliberately trying to suppress voters?
      - pjc50 10y ago
        It's all there in the litigation if you care to look. You could start at e.g. https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tracker-new-election-laws-suits-challenging-them https://www.propublica.org/article/2016-election-lawsuit-tra... and get to e.g. http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa6a0001 http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000156-3775-d2b4-a3d7-b7fdaa... "After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data , the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. "

bzbarsky 10y ago

Unfortunately, both sides work to systematically limit voting by their opponents, albeit using different tactics because the targets of suppression are different. See https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-... for some details.

chillwaves 10y ago
The two are no where near equivalent.
- bzbarsky 10y ago
  Why not? Note that I personally don't think "equivalent" is even a useful category to consider here: the methods of voter suppression are different enough that comparing them in any meaningful way is a serious research project at best. But apparently people keep feeling like we can place an agreed-on linear ordering of some sort on the horribleness of political party behavior. For people who think that, I would like to know why they think that and why they think that their particular ordering is the "right" one. My preferred outcome, obviously, would be if people made decisions about this stuff in terms of actual reasons other than "it's better for my chosen party". At least then there would be a basis for discussion and perhaps a possibility to change minds... I'm not holding my breath.