4 ms·

Step back from the voter disenfranchisement angle and consider how it's being done.

like_any_other 2mo ago
Your words, posted after my democracy comment: "It's kind of genius - use the one federally-controlled element of voting to disenfranchise your opponents, doing it so late that the courts can't rule in time." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427947 Are you going to issue a correction to that post, that actually it's not disenfranchisement at all, that restricted mail voting is perfectly democratic, and your only objection is that the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed?
- cosmicgadget 2mo ago
  Lol, "are you going to issue a correction!?!" It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement, the administration has been pretty clear about this. I asked you to also consider the other angle, it doesn't somehow invalidate the president's objective. > the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed? Tell me, what is the correct procedure for this, under the US Constitution?
  - like_any_other 2mo ago
    I don't care about the correct procedure, I'm only interested in the disenfranchisement angle. So, how does "It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement" square with the overwhelming majority of democracies also restricting mail-in voting? Is it only disenfranchisement when Trump does it?
    - cosmicgadget 2mo ago
      Quite simply because that is both the intent and the effect. What other countries do is completely immaterial. > I don't care about the correct procedure You mean constitutional procedure. Which is something you out to pretend to care about while you're making your case for Trump.
      - like_any_other 2mo ago
        I'm not making my case "for Trump", I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic. If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution. > What other countries do is completely immaterial. I disagree. I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis. In any case, following this change, voters in the US will be no more disenfranchised than voters in France, Iceland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, and every single country in South America (except Guyana and Suriname), where they have no voting by mail whatsoever.
        cosmicgadget 2mo ago
        > I'm not making my case "for Trump" You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly. Maybe you are just a firm supporter of ideological consistency. > I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic. Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that this is his intention. I agree that restricting voting by mail is not inherently undemocratic although restricting ballot access is almost always going carry disenfranchisement. Regardless, you cannot claim that restricting voting by mail cannot possibly be a means of disenfranchisment, with plenty of very obvious examples. Since we already know that is the goal here, you're using the dumbest possible opportunity to make a pedantic argument. It's like making a case for communism by talking about how great Kim Jong Un is. > I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis If you're making a definitional argument then the status quo is immaterial. If you are worried about poor Trump getting unfair treatment, it's a worthwhile thing to point out. But you aren't doing that! Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery with the goal of keeping power. > If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution. I never claimed the US Constitution determines whether or not something is democratic outside its borders. In any venue, for something to be democratic it ought to follow the rule of law.

Your words, posted after my democracy comment: "It's kind of genius - use the one federally-controlled element of voting to disenfranchise your opponents, doing it so late that the courts can't rule in time." - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427947 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427947 Are you going to issue a correction to that post, that actually it's not disenfranchisement at all, that restricted mail voting is perfectly democratic, and your only objection is that the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed?

cosmicgadget 2mo ago
Lol, "are you going to issue a correction!?!" It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement, the administration has been pretty clear about this. I asked you to also consider the other angle, it doesn't somehow invalidate the president's objective. > the correct procedures for how the change is made are not being followed? Tell me, what is the correct procedure for this, under the US Constitution?
- like_any_other 2mo ago
  I don't care about the correct procedure, I'm only interested in the disenfranchisement angle. So, how does "It's absolutely an attempt at disenfranchisement" square with the overwhelming majority of democracies also restricting mail-in voting? Is it only disenfranchisement when Trump does it?
  - cosmicgadget 2mo ago
    Quite simply because that is both the intent and the effect. What other countries do is completely immaterial. > I don't care about the correct procedure You mean constitutional procedure. Which is something you out to pretend to care about while you're making your case for Trump.
    - like_any_other 2mo ago
      I'm not making my case "for Trump", I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic. If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution. > What other countries do is completely immaterial. I disagree. I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis. In any case, following this change, voters in the US will be no more disenfranchised than voters in France, Iceland, Croatia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Turkey, Israel, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Nepal, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Taiwan, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, and every single country in South America (except Guyana and Suriname), where they have no voting by mail whatsoever.
      - cosmicgadget 2mo ago
        > I'm not making my case "for Trump" You seem awfully concerned he is being treated unfairly. Maybe you are just a firm supporter of ideological consistency. > I'm making my case that restricting or banning voting by mail is neither disenfranchisement nor undemocratic. Then you should pipe down in this situation because he's stated that this is his intention. I agree that restricting voting by mail is not inherently undemocratic although restricting ballot access is almost always going carry disenfranchisement. Regardless, you cannot claim that restricting voting by mail cannot possibly be a means of disenfranchisment, with plenty of very obvious examples. Since we already know that is the goal here, you're using the dumbest possible opportunity to make a pedantic argument. It's like making a case for communism by talking about how great Kim Jong Un is. > I think it's very material that no or minimal criticism about voter disenfranchisement was levied at those other countries on this basis If you're making a definitional argument then the status quo is immaterial. If you are worried about poor Trump getting unfair treatment, it's a worthwhile thing to point out. But you aren't doing that! Just make sure you note which countries restrict vote by mail using partisan chicanery with the goal of keeping power. > If you want to argue Trump is breaking the US constitution in enacting these changes, be my guest. But something is not democratic or not based on whether it abides by the US constitution. I never claimed the US Constitution determines whether or not something is democratic outside its borders. In any venue, for something to be democratic it ought to follow the rule of law.