5 ms·

The people behind this would tell you it's a "feature": by making it incredibly undesirable for people in densely-populated areas to vote (which almost universa

The people behind this would tell you it's a "feature": by making it incredibly undesirable for people in densely-populated areas to vote (which almost universally lean Democratic), you ensure that only the "right" people are able to vote.

dvtrn 6y ago
I eyeballed a few people making that very same argument right here on HN but draped in the typical and disgusting line about “personal responsibility” when someone was lamenting how difficult some states are making it to even get registered.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- SQueeeeeL 6y ago
  HN always has these "hot takes" discounting any societal failings, probably because the average user expects their worthless "Facebook for dogs" idea to turn them into a billionaire and want to keep low taxes
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    hey, once Intel's computerized nose takes off https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-is-teaching-a-computer-chip-to-smell/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-is-teaching-a-computer-c... my facebook for dogs is going to be raking in the bucks!
jimbob45 6y ago
It is a feature but not how you’re describing. The US governing system is designed in such a way as to move at a glacial pace but also to not make mistakes or over correct. The polling systems may seem broken now but will inevitably get corrected over time. Further, the US take states’ rights seriously and allows states to make many key decisions in terms of how they wish to hold elections. The thinking is that you’d rather have Johnny down the street dictate your election than someone you’ve never heard of in Washington DC. It’s en vogue to shit on the US election system right now but y’all are still using first-past-the-post just like the US. Seems a bit hypocritical.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- akiselev 6y ago
  > The US governing system is designed in such a way as to move at a glacial pace but also to not make mistakes or over correct. The polling systems may seem broken now but will inevitably get corrected over time. Is that what the 3/5ths compromise was about? Jim Crowe laws? Poll taxes? Poll literacy tests? Purging voter rolls? The notion that any of these "features" are necessary for good governance is ludicrous.
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    3/5 was written into the Constitution - that couldn’t have been helped. The rest were mistakes, yes, but they make the case for an even higher majority to pass a law, not a lower one. They’re state issues, not federal issues. If you don’t like the distributed governing system of the US, that’s fine, but the system was designed for local majorities to be able to self-govern on internal affairs and, to that end, I would argue that those were successful pieces of legislation. Sure, their intentions were misguided, but the US system was not designed to deal with bad people and I would argue that no system in the world is well-able to deal with bad people.
    - cortesoft 6y ago
      What? So much of our constitution is designed to deal with bad people. It is why the whole idea of a balance of power is in place.
- rwmj 6y ago
  It's been nearly 250 years.
bpt3 6y ago
Long wait times are occurring across the US this year for early voting; I spoke to someone in Texas (a historically Republican stronghold) who told me lines were 2 hours long in his area on the first day of early voting. US election regulations aren't designed to handle this level of early voting because there has never been this much demand for it. You can debate whether that should change or whether election officials should have been able to forecast this increase in demand (I would say yes to both), but I don't believe this to be as nefarious as you claim.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  In a vacuum, sure.... but when they are removing ballot drop boxes that are already in place, you can’t say that it is because they didn’t forecast demand... it is intentionally reducing capacity after increased demand was already anticipated.
- LiquidSky 6y ago
  >but I don't believe this to be as nefarious as you claim You might want to pay more attention, then. Take your Texas example: the state is currently in a legal battle over the Governor's surprise order two weeks ago to only allow one ballot drop per county [1], meaning that Harris County with 4.5 million people went from 11 drop locations to 1, the same number as rural counties with only several hundred people. And, of course, the high-population counties are the urban ones that reliably vote Democrat. This is just one of many examples from around the country of Republican governors/legislatures moving to reduce or remove early voting infrastructure. This is indeed an usual election, but there is unquestionably also a systematic campaign being waged to reduce voting by the Republicans. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/13/trump-judges-reinstate-texas-limit-on-ballot-drop-off-locations/#62f523fb6c68 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/13/trump-j...
  - bpt3 6y ago
    No, I don't need to pay more attention since I'm fully aware of that decision, but thanks for your condescending attitude. What impact does that decision have on the long lines in nearly every metropolitan area in the US, including places like mine which have no record of any claims of voter suppression or interference at the state level?
pvaldes 6y ago
I seems that is on purpose, yep. If you didn't see this speech yet, maybe you could find it enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBo_T3Kwjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBo_T3Kwjc
specialist 6y ago
I've heard people unselfconsciously testify against translation (Chinese, Spanish) of voting materials and ballots. Worse, they advocated literacy tests. Jim Crow much? There's plenty of popular support for disenfranchising eligible voters.

dvtrn 6y ago

I eyeballed a few people making that very same argument right here on HN but draped in the typical and disgusting line about “personal responsibility” when someone was lamenting how difficult some states are making it to even get registered.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
SQueeeeeL 6y ago
HN always has these "hot takes" discounting any societal failings, probably because the average user expects their worthless "Facebook for dogs" idea to turn them into a billionaire and want to keep low taxes
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  hey, once Intel's computerized nose takes off https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-is-teaching-a-computer-chip-to-smell/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-is-teaching-a-computer-c... my facebook for dogs is going to be raking in the bucks!

jimbob45 6y ago

It is a feature but not how you’re describing. The US governing system is designed in such a way as to move at a glacial pace but also to not make mistakes or over correct. The polling systems may seem broken now but will inevitably get corrected over time. Further, the US take states’ rights seriously and allows states to make many key decisions in terms of how they wish to hold elections. The thinking is that you’d rather have Johnny down the street dictate your election than someone you’ve never heard of in Washington DC. It’s en vogue to shit on the US election system right now but y’all are still using first-past-the-post just like the US. Seems a bit hypocritical.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
akiselev 6y ago
> The US governing system is designed in such a way as to move at a glacial pace but also to not make mistakes or over correct. The polling systems may seem broken now but will inevitably get corrected over time. Is that what the 3/5ths compromise was about? Jim Crowe laws? Poll taxes? Poll literacy tests? Purging voter rolls? The notion that any of these "features" are necessary for good governance is ludicrous.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  3/5 was written into the Constitution - that couldn’t have been helped. The rest were mistakes, yes, but they make the case for an even higher majority to pass a law, not a lower one. They’re state issues, not federal issues. If you don’t like the distributed governing system of the US, that’s fine, but the system was designed for local majorities to be able to self-govern on internal affairs and, to that end, I would argue that those were successful pieces of legislation. Sure, their intentions were misguided, but the US system was not designed to deal with bad people and I would argue that no system in the world is well-able to deal with bad people.
  - cortesoft 6y ago
    What? So much of our constitution is designed to deal with bad people. It is why the whole idea of a balance of power is in place.
rwmj 6y ago
It's been nearly 250 years.

bpt3 6y ago

Long wait times are occurring across the US this year for early voting; I spoke to someone in Texas (a historically Republican stronghold) who told me lines were 2 hours long in his area on the first day of early voting. US election regulations aren't designed to handle this level of early voting because there has never been this much demand for it. You can debate whether that should change or whether election officials should have been able to forecast this increase in demand (I would say yes to both), but I don't believe this to be as nefarious as you claim.

cortesoft 6y ago
In a vacuum, sure.... but when they are removing ballot drop boxes that are already in place, you can’t say that it is because they didn’t forecast demand... it is intentionally reducing capacity after increased demand was already anticipated.
LiquidSky 6y ago
>but I don't believe this to be as nefarious as you claim You might want to pay more attention, then. Take your Texas example: the state is currently in a legal battle over the Governor's surprise order two weeks ago to only allow one ballot drop per county [1], meaning that Harris County with 4.5 million people went from 11 drop locations to 1, the same number as rural counties with only several hundred people. And, of course, the high-population counties are the urban ones that reliably vote Democrat. This is just one of many examples from around the country of Republican governors/legislatures moving to reduce or remove early voting infrastructure. This is indeed an usual election, but there is unquestionably also a systematic campaign being waged to reduce voting by the Republicans. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/13/trump-judges-reinstate-texas-limit-on-ballot-drop-off-locations/#62f523fb6c68 https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/13/trump-j...
- bpt3 6y ago
  No, I don't need to pay more attention since I'm fully aware of that decision, but thanks for your condescending attitude. What impact does that decision have on the long lines in nearly every metropolitan area in the US, including places like mine which have no record of any claims of voter suppression or interference at the state level?

pvaldes 6y ago

I seems that is on purpose, yep. If you didn't see this speech yet, maybe you could find it enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBo_T3Kwjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpBo_T3Kwjc

specialist 6y ago

I've heard people unselfconsciously testify against translation (Chinese, Spanish) of voting materials and ballots. Worse, they advocated literacy tests. Jim Crow much? There's plenty of popular support for disenfranchising eligible voters.