5 ms·

Regardless of one's political leanings, it's frightening that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is c

Regardless of one's political leanings, it's frightening that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, but it somehow continues to be.

lisper 8y ago
That's because one of the two political parties has only minority support and thus depends on a long list of dirty tricks to remain in power.
- burlesona 8y ago
  That's a gross misunderstanding of the electorate. The Republicans didn't have the national majority vote this presidential election, but in Congress that's irrelevant. Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? They have overwhelming majority support. One of the worst problems in the country right now is that things have become so geographically polarized. Many people live so deep in their (red|blue) bubble that they don't even know anyone who votes for the other side.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Yes and no. I live next door to a couple (who have become our friends) that are ideologically opposed to us. Despite our houses being physically next to each other, we might as well inhabit a different world when it comes to politics. It would not be accurate to say they disagree with us on the issues, because to get to disagreement we would at least need to agree on the underlying facts. Without that structure, any discussion stalls immediately. It's like living in a different country.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Show them lots of love. :)
  - lisper 8y ago
    > Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? Yes. I grew up in Kentucky and Tennessee, and went to college in Virginia. The first time I moved to a town of more than 30,000 (Los Angeles) I was 24. So I am very familiar with the culture of "middle America". Yes, Republicans have overwhelming majority support in many districts, but they would not hold a majority in the House without gerrymandering [1] and they would not hold a majority in the Senate without the inherent bias towards small states built into the two-senators-per-state system. (I guess it's not fair to call that a "dirty trick", but I do think it's fair to apply that label to a lot of the things that Mitch McConnell has done as Senate majority leader.) Also, without that bias, no Republican would have been elected president such George H.W. Bush. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrymandering-kept-democrats-winning-even-more-seats-tuesday/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrym...
  - LorenPechtel 8y ago
    Their support in the heartland wasn't enough to elect Trump. That took voter suppression. (The number of poor minorities blocked from voting is greater than the Republican victory margin in multiple states. Flip those and we would have President Clinton.)
  - specialist 8y ago
    The apparent increased partisanship is the result of FPTP & gerrymandering coupled with engagement driven corporate media. I've served as the captain in the largest precinct in the most "liberal" legislative district (LD) in one of the most "liberal" states. I've been doorbelling my precinct for 10 years. My LD's GOTV efforts is specifically credited for winning multiple statewide offices and initiatives. The people (voters) aren't any where nearly as partisan as the election results. But if you went by media accounts, we're all treehugging socialists. The truth on the ground is there's a HUGE variety of opinions, positions.
- samfriedman 8y ago
  I think it'd be disingenuous to call either party's support a "minority" when they collectively represent 55% of voters as of 2014. https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/ https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/
  - lisper 8y ago
    One of the many dirty tricks that the Republicans use to remain in power is to pass laws that selectively disenfranchise minorities and other likely Democratic voters. So I don't think this is disingenuous at all. The fact that fewer people vote is in no small measure because of Republican dirty tricks [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppression-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppre...
    - samfriedman 8y ago
      Ah, my mistake: I interpreted your comment as referring to a statistical minority, rather than a racial/ethnic one.
      - rootusrootus 8y ago
        I think it is a valid observation that statistically, the Republican Party represents fewer citizens per politician than the Democratic Party. This is partly due to geography and the deliberate choices of Senate representation, and partly due to the skillful manipulation of state politics by the Republican Party. The Democrats collectively forgot for a while that politics starts at the local level, unsexy as it seems compared to, say, POTUS, and the Republicans cleaned their clock. Of course, currently the Democratic Party relies heavily on actual racial/gender minorities, but if they are smart they understand how fleeting that association can be, there is no guarantee it will remain durable over time. Especially as the number of older white male voters dwindles through natural attrition, it is pretty likely that the demographics of the parties are going to evolve.
        8y ago
duxup 8y ago
In the US voting machine decisions are also a very local decision. So even if it was a party decision... it really would have to be very local party decisions. Often times national party decisions in the US do not translate into local action even by folks in the same part as obviously things change on the ground.
- elliekelly 8y ago
  The federal government could set certain minimum standards for voting machines used in federal elections. That would effectively set the standard for all elections since I can't imagine any local governments could justify a set of machines for federal elections and a different set for local.
  - duxup 8y ago
    I wouldn't mind that.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - brandonmenc 8y ago
    Better yet, why doesn't DARPA design them and then the federal gov't outlaw any other voting machine, for any election.
    - AaronM 8y ago
      They recently started a contest to design an election machine.
coldcode 8y ago
If the ability to alter an election in your favor can be done invisibly, and you value being reelected over transparency, then buying these products make perfect sense. It's not an American thing, rigging elections is probably as old as having them.
cdoxsey 8y ago
This isn't true. The Secure Elections Act was introduced by a Republican: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2261 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/226....
- raquo 8y ago
  It also went nowhere, stalled in a republican controlled senate by a republican controlled committee.
- save_ferris 8y ago
  This is absolutely true. As someone else pointed out, it didn't even make it out of the committee controlled by the ruling party, and certainly wouldn't have made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate. This legislation would pass in a Democratic Congress and White House, but absolutely will not in a GOP-led government. Full stop.
  - cdoxsey 8y ago
    Its not true that "that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system". Apparently some Republicans support this bill. I bet there are some Democrats that don't support the bill. Partisan reductionism presents an overly simplistic view of a complex phenomena. And bills don't represent ideology anyway. They often have unintended consequences. Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID.
    - save_ferris 8y ago
      It's not that complicated: one party is committed to fixing this problem and has influential leaders backing such an initiative. Another party isn't even seriously trying. One GOP senator is interested in solving this problem? Good for that guy, but shame on the other 52 GOP senators that aren't. > And bills don't represent ideology anyway. Yes they do, that's why we vote for one party or another. Think taxes are too high? Want to expand social programs? Legislation is how all of that is executed. Bills absolutely represent party ideology. Take the green new deal, for example. How was that bill not an example of party ideology? > Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID. Voter ID laws were designed explicitly to suppress minority votes and have been struck down time and again by the courts. They were not designed to solve a legitimate issue, because there is no evidence that rampant voter fraud exists in the US[0]. What does exist, however, are coordinated ballot-harvesting efforts designed to unduly influence the outcome of elections, as was witnessed in NC-9 in this past election. But again, the GOP doesn't seem to be very concerned about this specific issue. [0]: https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...

lisper 8y ago

That's because one of the two political parties has only minority support and thus depends on a long list of dirty tricks to remain in power.

burlesona 8y ago
That's a gross misunderstanding of the electorate. The Republicans didn't have the national majority vote this presidential election, but in Congress that's irrelevant. Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? They have overwhelming majority support. One of the worst problems in the country right now is that things have become so geographically polarized. Many people live so deep in their (red|blue) bubble that they don't even know anyone who votes for the other side.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Yes and no. I live next door to a couple (who have become our friends) that are ideologically opposed to us. Despite our houses being physically next to each other, we might as well inhabit a different world when it comes to politics. It would not be accurate to say they disagree with us on the issues, because to get to disagreement we would at least need to agree on the underlying facts. Without that structure, any discussion stalls immediately. It's like living in a different country.
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Show them lots of love. :)
- lisper 8y ago
  > Have you been to Utah, or any of the other heartland states? Yes. I grew up in Kentucky and Tennessee, and went to college in Virginia. The first time I moved to a town of more than 30,000 (Los Angeles) I was 24. So I am very familiar with the culture of "middle America". Yes, Republicans have overwhelming majority support in many districts, but they would not hold a majority in the House without gerrymandering [1] and they would not hold a majority in the Senate without the inherent bias towards small states built into the two-senators-per-state system. (I guess it's not fair to call that a "dirty trick", but I do think it's fair to apply that label to a lot of the things that Mitch McConnell has done as Senate majority leader.) Also, without that bias, no Republican would have been elected president such George H.W. Bush. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrymandering-kept-democrats-winning-even-more-seats-tuesday/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/11/08/how-gerrym...
- LorenPechtel 8y ago
  Their support in the heartland wasn't enough to elect Trump. That took voter suppression. (The number of poor minorities blocked from voting is greater than the Republican victory margin in multiple states. Flip those and we would have President Clinton.)
- specialist 8y ago
  The apparent increased partisanship is the result of FPTP & gerrymandering coupled with engagement driven corporate media. I've served as the captain in the largest precinct in the most "liberal" legislative district (LD) in one of the most "liberal" states. I've been doorbelling my precinct for 10 years. My LD's GOTV efforts is specifically credited for winning multiple statewide offices and initiatives. The people (voters) aren't any where nearly as partisan as the election results. But if you went by media accounts, we're all treehugging socialists. The truth on the ground is there's a HUGE variety of opinions, positions.
samfriedman 8y ago
I think it'd be disingenuous to call either party's support a "minority" when they collectively represent 55% of voters as of 2014. https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/ https://www.people-press.org/interactives/party-id-trend/
- lisper 8y ago
  One of the many dirty tricks that the Republicans use to remain in power is to pass laws that selectively disenfranchise minorities and other likely Democratic voters. So I don't think this is disingenuous at all. The fact that fewer people vote is in no small measure because of Republican dirty tricks [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppression-elections.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/us/politics/voting-suppre...
  - samfriedman 8y ago
    Ah, my mistake: I interpreted your comment as referring to a statistical minority, rather than a racial/ethnic one.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      I think it is a valid observation that statistically, the Republican Party represents fewer citizens per politician than the Democratic Party. This is partly due to geography and the deliberate choices of Senate representation, and partly due to the skillful manipulation of state politics by the Republican Party. The Democrats collectively forgot for a while that politics starts at the local level, unsexy as it seems compared to, say, POTUS, and the Republicans cleaned their clock. Of course, currently the Democratic Party relies heavily on actual racial/gender minorities, but if they are smart they understand how fleeting that association can be, there is no guarantee it will remain durable over time. Especially as the number of older white male voters dwindles through natural attrition, it is pretty likely that the demographics of the parties are going to evolve.
      - 8y ago

duxup 8y ago

In the US voting machine decisions are also a very local decision. So even if it was a party decision... it really would have to be very local party decisions. Often times national party decisions in the US do not translate into local action even by folks in the same part as obviously things change on the ground.

elliekelly 8y ago
The federal government could set certain minimum standards for voting machines used in federal elections. That would effectively set the standard for all elections since I can't imagine any local governments could justify a set of machines for federal elections and a different set for local.
- duxup 8y ago
  I wouldn't mind that.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- brandonmenc 8y ago
  Better yet, why doesn't DARPA design them and then the federal gov't outlaw any other voting machine, for any election.
  - AaronM 8y ago
    They recently started a contest to design an election machine.

coldcode 8y ago

If the ability to alter an election in your favor can be done invisibly, and you value being reelected over transparency, then buying these products make perfect sense. It's not an American thing, rigging elections is probably as old as having them.

cdoxsey 8y ago

This isn't true. The Secure Elections Act was introduced by a Republican: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2261 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/226....

raquo 8y ago
It also went nowhere, stalled in a republican controlled senate by a republican controlled committee.
save_ferris 8y ago
This is absolutely true. As someone else pointed out, it didn't even make it out of the committee controlled by the ruling party, and certainly wouldn't have made it out of the Republican-controlled Senate. This legislation would pass in a Democratic Congress and White House, but absolutely will not in a GOP-led government. Full stop.
- cdoxsey 8y ago
  Its not true that "that only one of the two major American political parties is even feigning interest at fixing what is clearly a vulnerable system". Apparently some Republicans support this bill. I bet there are some Democrats that don't support the bill. Partisan reductionism presents an overly simplistic view of a complex phenomena. And bills don't represent ideology anyway. They often have unintended consequences. Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID.
  - save_ferris 8y ago
    It's not that complicated: one party is committed to fixing this problem and has influential leaders backing such an initiative. Another party isn't even seriously trying. One GOP senator is interested in solving this problem? Good for that guy, but shame on the other 52 GOP senators that aren't. > And bills don't represent ideology anyway. Yes they do, that's why we vote for one party or another. Think taxes are too high? Want to expand social programs? Legislation is how all of that is executed. Bills absolutely represent party ideology. Take the green new deal, for example. How was that bill not an example of party ideology? > Politicians might be interested in fixing a "vulnerable system" while rejecting a particular bill for some other reason. For example: Voter ID. Voter ID laws were designed explicitly to suppress minority votes and have been struck down time and again by the courts. They were not designed to solve a legitimate issue, because there is no evidence that rampant voter fraud exists in the US[0]. What does exist, however, are coordinated ballot-harvesting efforts designed to unduly influence the outcome of elections, as was witnessed in NC-9 in this past election. But again, the GOP doesn't seem to be very concerned about this specific issue. [0]: https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud...