4 ms·

the group that is doing it today is actually the opposite group of who was doing it in the past. as it turns out it isn't a single side that tries to restrict t

the group that is doing it today is actually the opposite group of who was doing it in the past. as it turns out it isn't a single side that tries to restrict the voting of people they disagree with. everyone given the opportunity will do this. and in case this isn't obvious. it's always bad no matter who is doing it. i just think its ridiculously stupid to suggest that only 1 group would do it and the other wouldn't given the opportunity.

davidw 5y ago
Different names, same crowd. My state, Oregon, has made it incredibly easy and secure to vote, and we do elect people from both parties.
- munk-a 5y ago
  My former state (I emigrated) of Vermont has a Republican governor. Folks can label him as a RINO or Vermont Republican - but he's conservative in a manner that aligns with a lot of Vermont sensibilities.
  - paulmd 5y ago
    Vermont is a really interesting state that crosses the "normal" lines in a lot of ways. AFAIK democrats there are, generally, pretty pro-gun for example (bernie aside). And generally the republicans there seem to have generally avoided going off the deep end like the rest of the country. Probably comes with being one of the most rural states in the country, but also with major population centers nearby. Would love to move there someday tbh.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Vermont is interesting because it has the absence of the authoritarian left that traditionally dominates politics in urban areas (Vermont's few urban areas aren't very urban) and the absence of the christian right and "not quite christian right but similarly conservative on all social issues" right like you find in a lot of the rest of the country. Basically the factions of both parties that care strongly about putting everyone else under their thumb when it comes to the social issues are under-represented in Vermont.
munk-a 5y ago
Ideologies in political parties have shifted enough that calling modern-day republicans and democrats the same as 40s republicans and democrats feels fraudulent. Whether someone was in the wrong yesterday is less important than correcting the folks in the wrong today and doesn't excuse their current behavior in any manner. If things shift the other way and democrats start suppressing the vote I'll be just as outraged at them - regardless of whether "my guy is winning" or not.
- dhritzkiv 5y ago
  It's infuriating when people use the "democrats were the conservative party disenfranchising minorities" XX years ago like some sort of "ha - gotcha. Your argument is now invalid. I am very smart." revelation.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Yup. As we all know, the modern day GOP voters famously support Lincoln and the actions of the Union Army.
- coconut08 5y ago
  to be absolutely clear i am not making excuses for anyone or anything. no matter who does it, trying to prevent your opponents from having access to voting is despicable. my point is to say that this isn't a party problem, a side problem or a group problem, it's a humans and power problem. people will just do stuff like this. the suggestion of the person i was responding to was that it's only a single group of people that are doing this specifically saying historically. my point is that it is a specific group right now, it was a different specific group in the past and it will be a different specfic group in the future and it's always bad. i think we almost entirely agree with each other.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    I don't know if I totally agree with that though - while most parties in power around the world do take steps to cement that power though shady means it goes to a real extreme in the US - Canada certainly hasn't been free from election scandals[1]. Additionally, all sorts of authoritarians definitely do a lot worse than the US by wholly suspending elections or otherwise entirely rigging the system. That all said, for a democracy, America seems to be taking it to an extreme. And, in America at least, these voter restrictions have always historically minimized the black vote. So I do think there is one group that has been consistently quite happy with voting limitations - they aren't the republican party, but they currently find refuge under its wings. 1. This last election has been (IMO fairly) decried as a waste of taxpayer money and a move that endangered the public simply to strengthen Liberal dominance (even if it failed hilariously).
wwweston 5y ago
It's clearly a non-starter to suggest that only 1 party would do such a thing, but that's distinct from saying only one "group" would do it if by group we're talking about social philosophy built around, say, the idea that there must be an in-group that the law protects but does not bind and the idea that there must be an out-group that the law binds but does not protect.
sonotathrowaway 5y ago
> the group that is doing it today is actually the opposite group of who was doing it in the past. as it turns out it isn't a single side that tries to restrict the voting of people they disagree with. I don’t think this is true at all.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> the group that is doing it today is actually the opposite group of who was doing it in the past. That depends on what you mean by “group”; its the same ideological faction, attached to the same historical narrative and much of the same factional symbology. They are largely associated with a different political party than in, say, the late 19th and early 20th century, due to a long period (or two overlapping periods) of partisan realignment between the 1930s and 1990s, in which they were marginalized within one party and then courted by the other.

davidw 5y ago

Different names, same crowd. My state, Oregon, has made it incredibly easy and secure to vote, and we do elect people from both parties.

munk-a 5y ago
My former state (I emigrated) of Vermont has a Republican governor. Folks can label him as a RINO or Vermont Republican - but he's conservative in a manner that aligns with a lot of Vermont sensibilities.
- paulmd 5y ago
  Vermont is a really interesting state that crosses the "normal" lines in a lot of ways. AFAIK democrats there are, generally, pretty pro-gun for example (bernie aside). And generally the republicans there seem to have generally avoided going off the deep end like the rest of the country. Probably comes with being one of the most rural states in the country, but also with major population centers nearby. Would love to move there someday tbh.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Vermont is interesting because it has the absence of the authoritarian left that traditionally dominates politics in urban areas (Vermont's few urban areas aren't very urban) and the absence of the christian right and "not quite christian right but similarly conservative on all social issues" right like you find in a lot of the rest of the country. Basically the factions of both parties that care strongly about putting everyone else under their thumb when it comes to the social issues are under-represented in Vermont.

munk-a 5y ago

Ideologies in political parties have shifted enough that calling modern-day republicans and democrats the same as 40s republicans and democrats feels fraudulent. Whether someone was in the wrong yesterday is less important than correcting the folks in the wrong today and doesn't excuse their current behavior in any manner. If things shift the other way and democrats start suppressing the vote I'll be just as outraged at them - regardless of whether "my guy is winning" or not.

dhritzkiv 5y ago
It's infuriating when people use the "democrats were the conservative party disenfranchising minorities" XX years ago like some sort of "ha - gotcha. Your argument is now invalid. I am very smart." revelation.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Yup. As we all know, the modern day GOP voters famously support Lincoln and the actions of the Union Army.
coconut08 5y ago
to be absolutely clear i am not making excuses for anyone or anything. no matter who does it, trying to prevent your opponents from having access to voting is despicable. my point is to say that this isn't a party problem, a side problem or a group problem, it's a humans and power problem. people will just do stuff like this. the suggestion of the person i was responding to was that it's only a single group of people that are doing this specifically saying historically. my point is that it is a specific group right now, it was a different specific group in the past and it will be a different specfic group in the future and it's always bad. i think we almost entirely agree with each other.
- munk-a 5y ago
  I don't know if I totally agree with that though - while most parties in power around the world do take steps to cement that power though shady means it goes to a real extreme in the US - Canada certainly hasn't been free from election scandals[1]. Additionally, all sorts of authoritarians definitely do a lot worse than the US by wholly suspending elections or otherwise entirely rigging the system. That all said, for a democracy, America seems to be taking it to an extreme. And, in America at least, these voter restrictions have always historically minimized the black vote. So I do think there is one group that has been consistently quite happy with voting limitations - they aren't the republican party, but they currently find refuge under its wings. 1. This last election has been (IMO fairly) decried as a waste of taxpayer money and a move that endangered the public simply to strengthen Liberal dominance (even if it failed hilariously).

wwweston 5y ago

It's clearly a non-starter to suggest that only 1 party would do such a thing, but that's distinct from saying only one "group" would do it if by group we're talking about social philosophy built around, say, the idea that there must be an in-group that the law protects but does not bind and the idea that there must be an out-group that the law binds but does not protect.

sonotathrowaway 5y ago

> the group that is doing it today is actually the opposite group of who was doing it in the past. as it turns out it isn't a single side that tries to restrict the voting of people they disagree with. I don’t think this is true at all.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> the group that is doing it today is actually the opposite group of who was doing it in the past. That depends on what you mean by “group”; its the same ideological faction, attached to the same historical narrative and much of the same factional symbology. They are largely associated with a different political party than in, say, the late 19th and early 20th century, due to a long period (or two overlapping periods) of partisan realignment between the 1930s and 1990s, in which they were marginalized within one party and then courted by the other.