5 ms·

This isn't really about "partisan entrenchment"; this is not a bipartisan issue. It's an issue with Republicans. There's no history of any large-scale activity

by Bud 9y ago

This isn't really about "partisan entrenchment"; this is not a bipartisan issue. It's an issue with Republicans. There's no history of any large-scale activity like this from Democrats.

boomboomsubban 9y ago
The history of Democrats doing this is so rich there's a Constitutional Ammendment addressing it. The current climate only benefits Republicans purging voters, but both sides manipulate voting to benefit themselves.
- lightbyte 9y ago
  Are you referring to the 15th or 17th amendment? Both of those were put in place before political parties switched their ideologies. The Republican Party of the 1800s was the liberal party, not the conservative beast it is today.
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    Ok, but the claim made above didn't have anything to do with "liberal" and "conservative", it was that the Democratic party has never pursued disenfranchisement policies, which is ahistorical to the point of silliness. Certainly, the Republican party is currently pursuing disenfranchisement to a shameful degree (and in my opinion voters should send them into the wilderness next year to show that this, and other, behavior is not acceptable), but it's not happening because they're fundamentally less moral than the Democrats. It's happening because they won power soon after a census and while facing a future of strong demographic shifts toward the other side. They have both motive and opportunity to skew the system in their favor. The Democrats would do the same thing in the same situation. We should be discussing system-level fixes rather than blaming a single party for taking advantage of the current system. The Supreme Court has a chance to start moving this in a better direction this session, and I hope they'll take it.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    24th, passed in 1960. Democrats were liberal in many areas at that time, but accepting blacks was a late move by them.
jerf 9y ago
To the best of my knowledge, you are correct that Democrats do not typically purge the rolls. Their strategy is to get dead people to vote, and to bus people around to vote fraudulently in multiple districts. Of course both parties cheat at as large a scale as they can get away with. If nothing else, if you really must conceptualize the Democrats as wholly good without a spot of blemish on them, then how can you believe there are no Democrats who consider it a moral imperative to cheat as much as they can to prevent Republicans from getting in? To think that either party is so ethical that they would never consider cheating at all is to require not only a very high bar of ethics, but a very particular bar of ethics to be met... in the world of politics, with control over the largest economy in the history of the world at stake. Are all Democrats really that purely deontologists?
- Bud 9y ago
  There is, of course, zero evidence of any of the allegations you mention. But there's ample evidence of voter suppression by Republicans. You need to focus more on the evidence.
  - masonic 9y ago
    There is, of course, zero evidence of any of the allegations you mention Actually, there's lots. A Freedom of Information Act disclosure showed Chicago had more votes than voters in 2016 elections: 1,101,178 voters, 1,115,664 votes cast[2]. Detroit: voting machines in more than one third of precints recorded more votes than there were voters! In California, 11 counties have more registered voters than voting age citizens. A few other examples: https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-los-angeles-144-voters-for-every-100-voting-age-citizens_2277108.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-los-angeles-144-voters-for-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/chicago-had-more-votes-than-voters-in-2016-elections_2288622.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/chicago-had-more-votes-than-vo... https://www.theepochtimes.com/stream-of-voter-fraud-cases-emerge-from-2016-elections_2286530.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/stream-of-voter-fraud-cases-em... https://www.theepochtimes.com/official-thousands-of-indiana-voter-registrations-altered_2174089.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/official-thousands-of-indiana-... Judicial Watch keeps uncovering more and more examples.
munk-a 9y ago
Democrats gerrymander and listen to lobbyists just like republicans, but you're correct that currently this is just an issue of abuse from republicans. Democrats have everything to gain by enfranchising as much people as possible because their voter base is growing faster than the GOP and urban areas tend to have lower turnout and vote more toward Liberals. But if the tables were flipped I'm sure folks would come out saying "We Democrats need to do it for the good of the party!" If you have any doubts look at the behavior of Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the last primary election or even the push during the primary that sanders supporters were acting against the good of the party.
- Bud 9y ago
  Gerrymandering and lobbyists are entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What you are "sure of" is just really invented. There's absolutely no evidence in the recent past of Democrats pulling any crap like this. Certainly not as an intentional, national policy initiative designed to disenfranchise others. Brazile is similarly irrelevant; the very most she is even alleged to have done is to tell someone about debate questions ahead of time, which would only be considered a serious advantage by people credulous enough to believe that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders aren't talented and intelligent enough to handle all foreseeable questions quite well. DWS' actions are similarly entirely irrelevant to a discussion of voter suppression.

by Bud 9y ago

This isn't really about "partisan entrenchment"; this is not a bipartisan issue. It's an issue with Republicans. There's no history of any large-scale activity like this from Democrats.

boomboomsubban 9y ago

The history of Democrats doing this is so rich there's a Constitutional Ammendment addressing it. The current climate only benefits Republicans purging voters, but both sides manipulate voting to benefit themselves.

lightbyte 9y ago
Are you referring to the 15th or 17th amendment? Both of those were put in place before political parties switched their ideologies. The Republican Party of the 1800s was the liberal party, not the conservative beast it is today.
- sanderjd 9y ago
  Ok, but the claim made above didn't have anything to do with "liberal" and "conservative", it was that the Democratic party has never pursued disenfranchisement policies, which is ahistorical to the point of silliness. Certainly, the Republican party is currently pursuing disenfranchisement to a shameful degree (and in my opinion voters should send them into the wilderness next year to show that this, and other, behavior is not acceptable), but it's not happening because they're fundamentally less moral than the Democrats. It's happening because they won power soon after a census and while facing a future of strong demographic shifts toward the other side. They have both motive and opportunity to skew the system in their favor. The Democrats would do the same thing in the same situation. We should be discussing system-level fixes rather than blaming a single party for taking advantage of the current system. The Supreme Court has a chance to start moving this in a better direction this session, and I hope they'll take it.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  24th, passed in 1960. Democrats were liberal in many areas at that time, but accepting blacks was a late move by them.

jerf 9y ago

To the best of my knowledge, you are correct that Democrats do not typically purge the rolls. Their strategy is to get dead people to vote, and to bus people around to vote fraudulently in multiple districts. Of course both parties cheat at as large a scale as they can get away with. If nothing else, if you really must conceptualize the Democrats as wholly good without a spot of blemish on them, then how can you believe there are no Democrats who consider it a moral imperative to cheat as much as they can to prevent Republicans from getting in? To think that either party is so ethical that they would never consider cheating at all is to require not only a very high bar of ethics, but a very particular bar of ethics to be met... in the world of politics, with control over the largest economy in the history of the world at stake. Are all Democrats really that purely deontologists?

Bud 9y ago
There is, of course, zero evidence of any of the allegations you mention. But there's ample evidence of voter suppression by Republicans. You need to focus more on the evidence.
- masonic 9y ago
  There is, of course, zero evidence of any of the allegations you mention Actually, there's lots. A Freedom of Information Act disclosure showed Chicago had more votes than voters in 2016 elections: 1,101,178 voters, 1,115,664 votes cast[2]. Detroit: voting machines in more than one third of precints recorded more votes than there were voters! In California, 11 counties have more registered voters than voting age citizens. A few other examples: https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-los-angeles-144-voters-for-every-100-voting-age-citizens_2277108.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-los-angeles-144-voters-for-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/chicago-had-more-votes-than-voters-in-2016-elections_2288622.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/chicago-had-more-votes-than-vo... https://www.theepochtimes.com/stream-of-voter-fraud-cases-emerge-from-2016-elections_2286530.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/stream-of-voter-fraud-cases-em... https://www.theepochtimes.com/official-thousands-of-indiana-voter-registrations-altered_2174089.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/official-thousands-of-indiana-... Judicial Watch keeps uncovering more and more examples.

munk-a 9y ago

Democrats gerrymander and listen to lobbyists just like republicans, but you're correct that currently this is just an issue of abuse from republicans. Democrats have everything to gain by enfranchising as much people as possible because their voter base is growing faster than the GOP and urban areas tend to have lower turnout and vote more toward Liberals. But if the tables were flipped I'm sure folks would come out saying "We Democrats need to do it for the good of the party!" If you have any doubts look at the behavior of Donna Brazile and Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the last primary election or even the push during the primary that sanders supporters were acting against the good of the party.

Bud 9y ago
Gerrymandering and lobbyists are entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. What you are "sure of" is just really invented. There's absolutely no evidence in the recent past of Democrats pulling any crap like this. Certainly not as an intentional, national policy initiative designed to disenfranchise others. Brazile is similarly irrelevant; the very most she is even alleged to have done is to tell someone about debate questions ahead of time, which would only be considered a serious advantage by people credulous enough to believe that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders aren't talented and intelligent enough to handle all foreseeable questions quite well. DWS' actions are similarly entirely irrelevant to a discussion of voter suppression.