10 ms·

Which party? Presumably the one that has control of the House, Senate, and Oval Office?

themitigating 5y ago
He's talking about states
alistairSH 5y ago
GOP has the majority of state governors. GOP has the majority of state legislatures. Both of the above are currently drawing Congressional districts based on the latest census data. Both of the above are currently rolling out voting rules that are nominally about preventing fraud (of which there is zero evidence of anything widespread) but will impact the ability of people to vote.
- scohesc 5y ago
  This is what I don't understand. Why can't legislators be proactive when it comes to protecting voting rights? We don't need to see any evidence of fraud to ensure the safety of voting rights.
  - analog31 5y ago
    Gerrymandering erases any hope that they will take up a genuine interest in voting rights when they can just manipulate the entire system in their own favor.
    - scohesc 5y ago
      I never mentioned gerrymandering at all - not sure why it's being brought up...
  - xenophonf 5y ago
    Because the "protections" end up disenfranchising voters, particularly people who vote for the opposite party.
  - CalChris 5y ago
    No, the State of Florida isn't protecting voting rights, your words. It is attacking voting rights. For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which returned the voting rights of most felons after they'd served their sentences. This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis. The state government wasn't protecting voting rights when it litigated the result. Indeed they are attacking the will of the citizens of Florida as expressed by their votes.
    - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
      I think you are making biased comments. There are good arguments both for, and against tightening, or loosening up a number of processes around voting. Currently in the US, most voting processes are significantly weaker than processes around getting a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, or buying a gun. This encourages participation at the cost of security. On the other hand, having to be at a certain place in a specific time window, or having to produce a strong identity can reduce voting participation to a minor extent. If this was altered such as by mass mail-in voting then this would reduce security at a benefit of accessibility. Part of the penalties for a conviction can be paying a fine to your victims or to the state. A logical example of your argument would be that you'd permit Bernie Madoff to vote after his release (provided he lived) regardless of whether or not he fully compensated the numerous victims of his financial crimes.
      - random314 5y ago
        Its basic data science to identify what kind of errors the current system introduces. Is it Type 1 errors or type 2 errors. Type 1 = right people not being able to vote Type 2 = wrong people voting The US has massive type 1 errors by far. So far I have only seen one instance of Type 2 error - a Republican voting twice. When I see people pounding on reducing non existent type 2 errors I have to question their intent.
- bgorman 5y ago
  Of course there is zero evidence of Voter fraud. States don’t even check for dead voters or voters who moved out of state. Diebold designs black box systems that aren’t audited by hackers. Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Not sure what you're talking about, there was definitely evidence of voter fraud. Not on a large scale, but still voter fraud. It just happened to be from the party that complains about voter fraud non-stop, ironically projection, and gets zero media coverage. In the event it does get media coverage, it's typically presented in skewed or twisted way. For example, an Arizona audit found 99 non-counted votes for the current president, and 261 falsified votes for the challenger. Instead of stating this outright, the number one cable news channel in the United States briefly mentioned it as "360 votes found for the current president" - no mention of the falsified votes of the loser. A bit dirty, dont you think? edit: revised numbers I'd incorrectly remembered
    - bgorman 5y ago
      Do you have any direct refutations to my allegations? Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I am willing to change my opinion if there is evidence to suggest credible voter fraud audits happen, but so far I have not been able to find any.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        > Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I mean, that's trivial. KY: https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-from-states-rolls/ https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-fro... NC: https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people-removed-from-voter-rolls https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people... CA: https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registration-up-to-date/cancellation-of-deceased-voter/details-about-removal-of-deceased-voters-from-voter-registration-list https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registratio... (this one is particularly detailed on the methods used, including "The Registrar of Voters office checks the obituaries listed in the newspapers daily" and "a list of deceased voters provided by the California Secretary of State’s office multiple times per year") FL: https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-Voter https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-... The Social Security Administration provides a list (https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html), and states check against their own death certificates, bounced mail, and other methods. Sometimes people have trouble proving they're still alive, even. https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-after-living-voters-flagged-dead/ https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-afte... People who try it tend to get caught, because it's harder than it seems to get away with: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohio-faces-charge-voting-twice-november-election-n1271985 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/2...
- briffle 5y ago
  Oregon just got a new House Rep member, and if you look at the new maps it has created, its pretty obvious this isn't a one party problem.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Gerrrymandering indeed has a long history, and it's a bit like nukes - if the other side is already using them, it's hard to hold off on your side. In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.
    - justaman 5y ago
      Should the region/counties that have a smaller population but different work forces or geographical makeup not have representation? Population alone cannot dictate the house of representatives.
      - alistairSH 5y ago
        Why should empty land get a vote? Why should the majority of the populace be beholden to an even-dwindling minority?
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        It's required for keeping the country intact. All the low population states would leave if they had no say at the federal level.
      - scelerat 5y ago
        But that is how the House is explicitly defined in the US constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower. And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.
  - matthewdgreen 5y ago
    At a national level, Senate Democrats have been trying to pass laws that place general limits on the practice. It would be nice for "both sides" arguments if some version of this project enjoyed bipartisan support: unfortunately it does not.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      I don't think the federal government has the authority to stop states from gerrymandering? Am I mistaken? It seems like the Democrats are just virtue signalling.
      - matthewdgreen 5y ago
        I think the "elections clause" (Article 1, Section 4, clause 1) gives Congress broad authority to override state laws regarding how its own representatives are elected. (Note: edited to simplify...) https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4...
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        I am aware of that clause but I am not sure I interpret "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections" as the same thing as drawing district lines. Is there any precedence you are aware of?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Lendal 5y ago
    You can be for reform while at the same time benefiting from the current system. If you don't have power, it doesn't matter what your opinions are. If the playing field isn't level, you still must either play on it or forfeit. If you decide to play, it doesn't mean you want the field to remain as it is.
- RickJWagner 5y ago
  Conservative voter here. I'll gladly trade you the state-level advantages held by the GOP for the national media machine controlled by the Dems. I think the media is the most powerful over the long haul.
  - larkost 5y ago
    I know that a lot of conservative news outlets have been repeating this over and over, but the facts just simply don't support this statement. The largest TV news organization by viewership is Fox News, and has been for a long time. Fox News was founded to give conservative voices a bigger platform. So it was founded to be a right-leaning (biased) platform. But that does not make everything to the political left of Fox News left-leaning. And if you start to look at talk-radio listenership then the numbers lean hugely to the right, and often far to the right. The left-wing equivalents are tiny. People who lean to the left tend to gravitate towards centrist media like NPR News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Again, I know that those are often painted as being left-leaning in the conservative media, but they are starting to paint Fox News the same way, and their politics have been tending right for a decade now.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - OGWhales 5y ago
    Conservatives have an extremely powerful media machine too. Some of the most viewed personas on TV and online are conservatives, with the same being true for radio.
tibbetts 5y ago
No, the one clinging to power despite support from a shrinking minority of the electorate.

He's talking about states

GOP has the majority of state governors. GOP has the majority of state legislatures. Both of the above are currently drawing Congressional districts based on the latest census data. Both of the above are currently rolling out voting rules that are nominally about preventing fraud (of which there is zero evidence of anything widespread) but will impact the ability of people to vote.

scohesc 5y ago
This is what I don't understand. Why can't legislators be proactive when it comes to protecting voting rights? We don't need to see any evidence of fraud to ensure the safety of voting rights.
- analog31 5y ago
  Gerrymandering erases any hope that they will take up a genuine interest in voting rights when they can just manipulate the entire system in their own favor.
  - scohesc 5y ago
    I never mentioned gerrymandering at all - not sure why it's being brought up...
- xenophonf 5y ago
  Because the "protections" end up disenfranchising voters, particularly people who vote for the opposite party.
- CalChris 5y ago
  No, the State of Florida isn't protecting voting rights, your words. It is attacking voting rights. For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which returned the voting rights of most felons after they'd served their sentences. This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis. The state government wasn't protecting voting rights when it litigated the result. Indeed they are attacking the will of the citizens of Florida as expressed by their votes.
  - OrvalWintermute 5y ago
    I think you are making biased comments. There are good arguments both for, and against tightening, or loosening up a number of processes around voting. Currently in the US, most voting processes are significantly weaker than processes around getting a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, or buying a gun. This encourages participation at the cost of security. On the other hand, having to be at a certain place in a specific time window, or having to produce a strong identity can reduce voting participation to a minor extent. If this was altered such as by mass mail-in voting then this would reduce security at a benefit of accessibility. Part of the penalties for a conviction can be paying a fine to your victims or to the state. A logical example of your argument would be that you'd permit Bernie Madoff to vote after his release (provided he lived) regardless of whether or not he fully compensated the numerous victims of his financial crimes.
    - random314 5y ago
      Its basic data science to identify what kind of errors the current system introduces. Is it Type 1 errors or type 2 errors. Type 1 = right people not being able to vote Type 2 = wrong people voting The US has massive type 1 errors by far. So far I have only seen one instance of Type 2 error - a Republican voting twice. When I see people pounding on reducing non existent type 2 errors I have to question their intent.
bgorman 5y ago
Of course there is zero evidence of Voter fraud. States don’t even check for dead voters or voters who moved out of state. Diebold designs black box systems that aren’t audited by hackers. Saying there is no evidence of voter fraud is like refusing to get an MRI and saying there is no evidence of cancer.
- s5300 5y ago
  Not sure what you're talking about, there was definitely evidence of voter fraud. Not on a large scale, but still voter fraud. It just happened to be from the party that complains about voter fraud non-stop, ironically projection, and gets zero media coverage. In the event it does get media coverage, it's typically presented in skewed or twisted way. For example, an Arizona audit found 99 non-counted votes for the current president, and 261 falsified votes for the challenger. Instead of stating this outright, the number one cable news channel in the United States briefly mentioned it as "360 votes found for the current president" - no mention of the falsified votes of the loser. A bit dirty, dont you think? edit: revised numbers I'd incorrectly remembered
  - bgorman 5y ago
    Do you have any direct refutations to my allegations? Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I am willing to change my opinion if there is evidence to suggest credible voter fraud audits happen, but so far I have not been able to find any.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > Do you have proof states are auditing for dead voters for example? I mean, that's trivial. KY: https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-from-states-rolls/ https://www.wtvq.com/more-than-10000-dead-voters-removed-fro... NC: https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people-removed-from-voter-rolls https://wlos.com/news/local/how-are-names-of-deceased-people... CA: https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registration-up-to-date/cancellation-of-deceased-voter/details-about-removal-of-deceased-voters-from-voter-registration-list https://www.ocvote.com/registration/keeping-your-registratio... (this one is particularly detailed on the methods used, including "The Registrar of Voters office checks the obituaries listed in the newspapers daily" and "a list of deceased voters provided by the California Secretary of State’s office multiple times per year") FL: https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-Voter https://www.duvalelections.com/Voter-Information/Removal-of-... The Social Security Administration provides a list (https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html https://www.ssa.gov/dataexchange/request_dmf.html), and states check against their own death certificates, bounced mail, and other methods. Sometimes people have trouble proving they're still alive, even. https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-after-living-voters-flagged-dead/ https://www.texastribune.org/2012/09/12/concerns-raised-afte... People who try it tend to get caught, because it's harder than it seems to get away with: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohio-faces-charge-voting-twice-november-election-n1271985 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/republican-official-ohi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/2...
briffle 5y ago
Oregon just got a new House Rep member, and if you look at the new maps it has created, its pretty obvious this isn't a one party problem.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Gerrrymandering indeed has a long history, and it's a bit like nukes - if the other side is already using them, it's hard to hold off on your side. In 2018, North Carolina saw 50% of the vote go to Republicans, but they received 77% of the Congressional seats. A couple rounds of that is a recipe for a permanent minority for the other party.
  - justaman 5y ago
    Should the region/counties that have a smaller population but different work forces or geographical makeup not have representation? Population alone cannot dictate the house of representatives.
    - alistairSH 5y ago
      Why should empty land get a vote? Why should the majority of the populace be beholden to an even-dwindling minority?
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        It's required for keeping the country intact. All the low population states would leave if they had no say at the federal level.
    - scelerat 5y ago
      But that is how the House is explicitly defined in the US constitution: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." Part of the problem is that the number of Representatives in the house has been fixed at 435 since the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. There would be no "small/rural/unique regions aren't represented without drawing crazy district lines" argument if the number of people represented per US Rep were lower. And, as we see now, the lines of districts are simply not drawn according to regional peculiar needs. They are drawn by party affiliation, by the parties themselves. Which is insane.
_-david-_ 5y ago
You should look at Democratic states. Illinois looks quite gerrymandered as well. I think Maryland (maybe?) was quite bad as well. This is a bipartisan thing. It just so happens that Republicans have the majority of states.
- matthewdgreen 5y ago
  At a national level, Senate Democrats have been trying to pass laws that place general limits on the practice. It would be nice for "both sides" arguments if some version of this project enjoyed bipartisan support: unfortunately it does not.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    I don't think the federal government has the authority to stop states from gerrymandering? Am I mistaken? It seems like the Democrats are just virtue signalling.
    - matthewdgreen 5y ago
      I think the "elections clause" (Article 1, Section 4, clause 1) gives Congress broad authority to override state laws regarding how its own representatives are elected. (Note: edited to simplify...) https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-4...
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        I am aware of that clause but I am not sure I interpret "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections" as the same thing as drawing district lines. Is there any precedence you are aware of?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Lendal 5y ago
  You can be for reform while at the same time benefiting from the current system. If you don't have power, it doesn't matter what your opinions are. If the playing field isn't level, you still must either play on it or forfeit. If you decide to play, it doesn't mean you want the field to remain as it is.
RickJWagner 5y ago
Conservative voter here. I'll gladly trade you the state-level advantages held by the GOP for the national media machine controlled by the Dems. I think the media is the most powerful over the long haul.
- larkost 5y ago
  I know that a lot of conservative news outlets have been repeating this over and over, but the facts just simply don't support this statement. The largest TV news organization by viewership is Fox News, and has been for a long time. Fox News was founded to give conservative voices a bigger platform. So it was founded to be a right-leaning (biased) platform. But that does not make everything to the political left of Fox News left-leaning. And if you start to look at talk-radio listenership then the numbers lean hugely to the right, and often far to the right. The left-wing equivalents are tiny. People who lean to the left tend to gravitate towards centrist media like NPR News, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Again, I know that those are often painted as being left-leaning in the conservative media, but they are starting to paint Fox News the same way, and their politics have been tending right for a decade now.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- OGWhales 5y ago
  Conservatives have an extremely powerful media machine too. Some of the most viewed personas on TV and online are conservatives, with the same being true for radio.

tibbetts 5y ago

No, the one clinging to power despite support from a shrinking minority of the electorate.