4 ms·

There's a lot of reasons but the number one one is because there's only a two party system here in the US and the Republican one by it's policies and histories

by rtkwe 6y ago

There's a lot of reasons but the number one one is because there's only a two party system here in the US and the Republican one by it's policies and histories is almost entirely reliant on non-white voters not showing up in the electorate. It's not quiet, in NC they've explicitly targeted voting days and locations that are predominantly Democratic and non-white [0]. Second is just our whole system, the states are independent and run their own voting so tracking movement between states is harder in places that having intentionally done something like motorvotor (where ID and voter registration happen together). [1] [0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/ [1] Again generally opposed by Republicans because it would mean more voters which demographically isn't good for them.

microcolonel 6y ago
> Republican one by it's policies and histories is almost entirely reliant on non-white voters not showing up in the electorate You could make the literal exact argument in reverse with at least as much credibility.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  Democrats aren't the ones pushing to lock people out of voting. Republicans are the only ones pushing actively for and currently dependent on minoritarian rule.
  - fastball 6y ago
    No, the idea is that Democrats are doing the opposite, which (if true) is just as bad. Republicans shouldn't be locking out people who are eligible to vote, but at the same time Democrats shouldn't be enabling the submission of fraudulent ballots (ineligible, dead persons, etc), which common sense says is easier if you don't require ID verification at polls or if you allow mail-in ballots for all. Both are anti-democratic.
    - rtkwe 6y ago
      > Republicans shouldn't be locking out people who are eligible to vote, but at the same time Democrats shouldn't be enabling the submission of fraudulent ballots (ineligible, dead persons, etc), which common sense says is easier if you don't require ID verification at polls or if you allow mail-in ballots for all. There's no evidence of even minor amounts of voting fraud, the current administration spent months on a commission to find the claimed millions of fraudulent votes and came up with nothing to my recollection. In fact the biggest cases I saw that came out recently was a Republican operative in North Carolina packing mail-in ballots... and he was caught without voter ID. One is actively anti-democratic, the other is hypothetically anti-democratic. You're trying to both sides a possibility against actually anti-democratic actions and policies. If any of the voter ID attempts came with real attempts to increase voter turn out and make sure everyone had an ID I might give them the benefit of the doubt but it never does and the only side that wants it fights tooth and nail to make it harder for voters to vote.
      - fastball 6y ago
        > a Republican operative in North Carolina packing mail-in ballots... and he was caught without voter ID. It's the Republicans that want voter ID and the Democrats that want to get rid of it. And yet you're telling me that it's all just Republicans looking out for their own interests / voter suppression? Ok... Points I have made: 1. Voter fraud exists (true) 2. Republicans support policies that based on common-sense (and actual examples) reduce fraud Thank you for helping me make my argument. And again, it takes two to tango. Why can't the Democrats run with voter ID and encourage people to vote / make it easy for everyone eligible to get an ID? Instead they say "no voter ID ever, it's always voter suppression!" The problem with voter fraud is that it's obviously hard to detect at scale if it actually works. Unlike other crimes, there is no victim that you can use to count cases.
    - lincolnq 6y ago
      Ugh, this is both-sides-ism at its worst. The impact of actual fraud on elections is nil, whereas the impact of subtle disenfranchisement is easily election-swinging. Both are anti-democratic, but that doesn’t mean they are equally bad.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? That's just a corollary. Yes - what you just said is logically consistent.
- cmorgan31 6y ago
  You had the chance to do just that and ended up not making an effort. It seems far fetched to think anyone could become president without a sizable chunk of white voters in the US just based on the census demographic data. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
  - fastball 6y ago
    Well given that whites are a majority of the population, it makes sense that the president would need a sizable chunk of that populace. What am I missing here?
    - cmorgan31 6y ago
      It would be factually incorrect to say the Democrats have a history or desire to disenfranchise white voters. You can not become president without a chunk of the majority demographic’s support. Hopefully that helps shine light on whatever you are missing.
      - fastball 6y ago
        Right, I understand that. I just don't understand the point you are trying to make in the context of the discussion.
        cmorgan31 6y ago
        You understand my point if you understand the two sentences I had the desire to type out on the topic. I wasn't responding to the full context of the grandparent's post. I was responding to the weak attempt at saying the Democrats and Republicans are the reverse sides of the same coin. Democrats have no desire to disenfranchise the same way Republicans do as it doesn't benefit them. They may try other ways to skew the results towards them but this tactic isn't used by them.
- djaque 6y ago
  Sure, let me make it here: better watch out for those Democrats encouraging traditionally poorly represented groups to get out and have their voices heard. /s It doesn't really have the same ring, does it.
- majormajor 6y ago
  You could, and then you'd get up to the 60s, and... then you couldn't anymore. I notice that you say you could but you actually didn't...

by rtkwe 6y ago

microcolonel 6y ago

> Republican one by it's policies and histories is almost entirely reliant on non-white voters not showing up in the electorate You could make the literal exact argument in reverse with at least as much credibility.

rtkwe 6y ago
Democrats aren't the ones pushing to lock people out of voting. Republicans are the only ones pushing actively for and currently dependent on minoritarian rule.
- fastball 6y ago
  No, the idea is that Democrats are doing the opposite, which (if true) is just as bad. Republicans shouldn't be locking out people who are eligible to vote, but at the same time Democrats shouldn't be enabling the submission of fraudulent ballots (ineligible, dead persons, etc), which common sense says is easier if you don't require ID verification at polls or if you allow mail-in ballots for all. Both are anti-democratic.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    > Republicans shouldn't be locking out people who are eligible to vote, but at the same time Democrats shouldn't be enabling the submission of fraudulent ballots (ineligible, dead persons, etc), which common sense says is easier if you don't require ID verification at polls or if you allow mail-in ballots for all. There's no evidence of even minor amounts of voting fraud, the current administration spent months on a commission to find the claimed millions of fraudulent votes and came up with nothing to my recollection. In fact the biggest cases I saw that came out recently was a Republican operative in North Carolina packing mail-in ballots... and he was caught without voter ID. One is actively anti-democratic, the other is hypothetically anti-democratic. You're trying to both sides a possibility against actually anti-democratic actions and policies. If any of the voter ID attempts came with real attempts to increase voter turn out and make sure everyone had an ID I might give them the benefit of the doubt but it never does and the only side that wants it fights tooth and nail to make it harder for voters to vote.
    - fastball 6y ago
      > a Republican operative in North Carolina packing mail-in ballots... and he was caught without voter ID. It's the Republicans that want voter ID and the Democrats that want to get rid of it. And yet you're telling me that it's all just Republicans looking out for their own interests / voter suppression? Ok... Points I have made: 1. Voter fraud exists (true) 2. Republicans support policies that based on common-sense (and actual examples) reduce fraud Thank you for helping me make my argument. And again, it takes two to tango. Why can't the Democrats run with voter ID and encourage people to vote / make it easy for everyone eligible to get an ID? Instead they say "no voter ID ever, it's always voter suppression!" The problem with voter fraud is that it's obviously hard to detect at scale if it actually works. Unlike other crimes, there is no victim that you can use to count cases.
  - lincolnq 6y ago
    Ugh, this is both-sides-ism at its worst. The impact of actual fraud on elections is nil, whereas the impact of subtle disenfranchisement is easily election-swinging. Both are anti-democratic, but that doesn’t mean they are equally bad.
Judgmentality 6y ago
Is that supposed to be a rebuttal? That's just a corollary. Yes - what you just said is logically consistent.
cmorgan31 6y ago
You had the chance to do just that and ended up not making an effort. It seems far fetched to think anyone could become president without a sizable chunk of white voters in the US just based on the census demographic data. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219
- fastball 6y ago
  Well given that whites are a majority of the population, it makes sense that the president would need a sizable chunk of that populace. What am I missing here?
  - cmorgan31 6y ago
    It would be factually incorrect to say the Democrats have a history or desire to disenfranchise white voters. You can not become president without a chunk of the majority demographic’s support. Hopefully that helps shine light on whatever you are missing.
    - fastball 6y ago
      Right, I understand that. I just don't understand the point you are trying to make in the context of the discussion.
      - cmorgan31 6y ago
        You understand my point if you understand the two sentences I had the desire to type out on the topic. I wasn't responding to the full context of the grandparent's post. I was responding to the weak attempt at saying the Democrats and Republicans are the reverse sides of the same coin. Democrats have no desire to disenfranchise the same way Republicans do as it doesn't benefit them. They may try other ways to skew the results towards them but this tactic isn't used by them.
djaque 6y ago
Sure, let me make it here: better watch out for those Democrats encouraging traditionally poorly represented groups to get out and have their voices heard. /s It doesn't really have the same ring, does it.
majormajor 6y ago
You could, and then you'd get up to the 60s, and... then you couldn't anymore. I notice that you say you could but you actually didn't...