All the votes i could cast this year that will substantively affect an outcome have already been cast in my state’s statewide primary, in which i cast an absentee ballot i mailed back last week. I voted in the presidential primary before lockdown, where my candidate was defeated.
I will for damn sure be voting in the general, but my local rep is running uncontested, my state has a polling average of ~+40 biden, and no local ballot measures of any interest are included this cycle, so all i’m doing is bumping the popular vote a bit in an extremely predictable direction as far as top of the ticket is concerned.
Downballot, we have a right to repair measure that I think is important, but not a lot else.
edit: just to be clear, I _love_ voting, I take my obligations seriously, it's one of my favorite civic activities, I am well aware of the importance of local politics. Mostly, I am equal parts relieved that we're here again, and only disappointed that the pandemic is almost certainly going to preclude my usual celebratory post-voting girl scout bake-sale brownie at my polling place.
I would be fearful of polls considering the 2016 presidential election. Plus, there's more than just the president and your state rep. Local positions like judges, DAs, etc are also important. In some sense probably more importany than federal politics.
Trust me... I understand how important the presidential is. My point was that politics in the US rolls uphill. You have a much bigger impact on local elections than on federal elections. That one vote has a bigger impact than on trying to change that one senate seat.
put it this way: my state was the only one that went for mondale. I'm not super in doubt about the outcome of the presidential ballot in november, here :)
People have got to get over the math arguments here. Voting isn't about whether your vote will "matter" mathematically to your local races. It's a symbol of expressing your democratic power - a discipline and civic responsibility. We should all vote just as part of being citizens that care about and defend democracy.
(And then occasionally - you don't know when - it will also matter mathematically.)
Your vote should still show in the "popular vote", right? Popular vs electoral college results might result in a reform, later. Please get on record with your decision, please vote.
It's so strange to me that voting is so political in the USA (yes, I realize the phrasing). It really feels like fundamental voting rights are constantly under attack -- whether it's against felons in Florida that don't vote the way that the leadership likes, or disenfranchising minorities.
For a "bastion of democracy and freedom", America has some major problems with its most basic rights.
This is intentionally done by one political party that does not care about democracy. They push policies that restrict individual voting rights, gerrymander districts for minority rule, and expand the influence of money over people. This has been their plan for decades, as they see the younger and more diverse America as a threat to their ideology. We have got to vote them out at every level.
It's disingenuous to not acknowledge the Republican argument that this is about preventing voter fraud. The Democrat argument is of course, that Republicans are actually trying to disenfranchise actual voters.
Either way, this last minute effort to expand mail in voting may not be fraudulent, but it's way too easy to allege fraud, and results will simply take too long to be tallied for anyone to actually trust the election.
The legitimacy of an institution is oftentimes equally backed by the perceptions of trust and respect of that institution as much as it is backed by the actual functionality of that institution.
Regardless of who you back or how much you trust the authenticity of vote by mail, too many people do not trust the other side to not cheat. And even if you assume we live in a world where voter fraud isn't possible for vote by mail, the veracity of the election can be attacked with little effort.
Imagine we're two or three weeks into November and still counting votes. A rogue actor prints tens of thousands of fake ballots. They don't need to actually count them, they just nee to make it public- "hey we found a bunch of lost (party of your choice) ballots!". That's what's scary to me. Suddenly, no one has faith that the other side didn't cheat. If I were Xi(China)- this is exactly what I'd be doing right now. It'd be laughably easy for a foreign state actor to absolutely destroy our faith in the election process right now.
I take your point, but I don’t feel it’s disingenuous to take the quote at face value.
Maybe the quote lost some context but talking about “...levels of voting...” being a negative thing seems like a pretty obvious admission of a desire to suppress votes.
Oh yeah, facing the worst health crisis in a century and it's disingenuous to not engage the Republican talking points despite there being zero evidence for them (and there is evidence to the contrary!) while they systematically dismantle the postal service from the inside to "save money" right now, in this moment.
No, they don't deserve the legitimacy of being engaged with as if what's going on isn't criminal or corrupt. It is, and those are the facts on the ground.
Democrats controlled the house continuously for 40 years until 1994, due in no small part to gerrymandering. Republican-advantage gerrymandering (on a nationwide basis) dates to only about 2010.
> Democrats controlled the house continuously for 40 years until 1994,
1955-1995, actually, and yet it is still true that the current Republican effort (which also includes gerrymandering, but also all the other factors list by GP) has been in place for decades. (1995 was two and a half decades ago, and the Republican strategy being discussed started before they took control of the House.)
And, yes, some of the other bits besides gerrymandering also used to be Democratic strategies, especially racially-targeted restrictions on voting rights before the parties switched sides on race issues in a process that included Johnson's embrace of civil rights followed by the Republican subsequent exploitation of that and pursuit of disaffected ex-Democratic racists as a core voting bloc.
The unfortunate reality is that this issue goes all the way back to the founding of the country, it’s by no means a new political battleground. From slavery, to women’s suffrage, to Jim Crow, to today, there are chapters of voter suppression and movements around voting rights throughout our history.
It’s easy to take my right to vote and ability to vote relatively easily for granted, and that’s a major lesson we’re learning in 2020.
Same. We can talk about security all day, but nobody should just be against (either openly or with thinly veiled excuses) getting everyone who wants to vote the easy ability to vote.
Personally I think that the US should go the route of a national voting holiday.
Grandparent might be referring to the fact that the founders' vision of limited government was of a government much smaller than what we have today with much less interference in people's lives. If they were alive today the founders would likely be shocked at just how much the (federal) government does and how much it impacts daily life. Since the government was expected to do much less than it does today, voting would have a much less significant impact on people.
Concrete examples that did not exist at founding include:
- social programs (welfare, social security, unemployment benefits)
- high levels of military spending/military industrial complex
- income tax
- many of the executive branch regulatory and other agencies
George Washington's cabinet had only five members: himself, the secretary of state, the secretary of the treasury, the secretary of war (now defense), and the attorney general. Nothing else - no Department of the Interior, no Health and Human Services, no Department of Education, no Department of Energy, no Small Business Administration (just to name some that come to mind).
Voting is unfortunately political in the U.S., but I wonder if it would be any different in France or Germany under similar circumstances. 90% of the German electorate are people who were born German citizens with two German parents: https://www.dw.com/en/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-german.... In the U.S., twice as many voters are first or second generation immigrants, and a further 10-15% are members of politically-distinct minority groups. (And of course, out of the people who are third-generation or higher, and not part of a politically-distinct minority, vast numbers are from groups that haven't been here that much longer, and voting was very political for them when they immigrated.)
Would voting in Germany be so non-political under the same circumstances? Obviously, voting shouldn't be political. We should pick voting rules without discriminating based on race, naturalization status, etc. That's the ideal we should strive to achieve. My point is different: human nature being what it is, it's worth asking whether anyone is really doing better under similar circumstances. And if they are doing things better, what are they doing that we could be copying?
If a party in Germany wanted to do the same thing, it would make voting more difficult in rural or urban areas, or east or west, or similar, depending on where its support was. This sort of manipulation of outcomes via some form of discrimination is _possible_ everywhere. The US does seem unusual for a developed country in that there are major organised attempts to _reduce the number of people who vote_, though. And possibly unique anywhere in that senior elected officials have mentioned this in the context of it being a good thing.
Generally, in a democracy, more voting is, at least publicly, considered better (in private, of course, some party officials might disagree, but the backlash if they tried to _do_ anything about it would be unthinkable).
I actually wonder to what extent this is a function of how democracy developed in the US vs everywhere. At least in the popular mythology, voting went from available to all male members of the ethnic majority, to all members of the ethnic majority, to everyone (this isn't actually quite true; a number of southern states had property qualifications for whites pre-civil war). Whereas a more common pattern of development elsewhere was the vote for practically no-one -> the vote for a very few (property qualifications) -> the vote for all men -> the vote for everyone. Most people in Europe will need to look back no more than a few generations to see where _their_ family wasn't able to vote, which may cause people to be more defensive of the institution.
There's also the example of history; most of Europe's 20th century totalitarian regimes screwed with voting early in their development.
You're glossing over my question. If Germany was more heterogeneous, with more political conflict between groups, would folks in Germany be trying such measures?
Half of Germany was a communist country until 30 years ago while the other half was a wealthy democracy. Not sure how much more heterogenous than that you get, politics-wise. There remain fairly dramatic political differences between the former east and west.
My second hand understanding, though, is that west Germans consider East Germans to be the same people and the integration was viewed as a reunification. Not quite the same as different groups who perceive themselves as distinct and with conflicting interests.
Felons don't have their voting rights removed because people don't like how they vote - they have them removed because the idea is that if you don't follow the law, you shouldn't be allowed to take part in making the laws. Voting rights are restricted for the mentally incompetent and non-citizens as well, for different reasons though.
If you look at the map, you see not a very strong correlation with the idea that Republicans remove voting rights from felons because they lean democrats(which I assume is what you were getting at). Literally only two states don't restrict felon voting rights, and that is Maine and and Vermont. If there was some voter suppression operating against Democratic leaning felons, one would assume states like California, New York, and Massachusetts would not restrict felon voting - but they do.
Setting partisan politics aside, I don't agree with the idea that you committed a felony == you're mentally unfit to vote.
Once people have served their time they deserve to rejoin society. They are imperfect human beings, but human beings nonetheless. Plus stuff like drug offenses count as felonies and I don't think those people deserve to be ostracized for a lifetime.
I agree - most states simply restrict felons from voting while they are serving their sentence or while they are under parole/probation. Only after that are their voting rights restored.
I think one of the greatest swindles in American politics is the redefinition of "freedom" to only mean freedom from the government's interference. As long as the government doesn't send troops to block you from voting, it satisfies their sense of righteousness - it doesn't matter if some people have to stand in line for five hours to vote, because (in this world view) the government has no obligation to actually make the "freedom" practical. In a perversion of language, it's now called "entitlement".
Reminds me of the famous quote: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
- Initially the public couldn't vote for senators who were chosen by state legislature.
- Initially the public couldn't vote for president.
- Initially the 'public' was white men with property (this one is more widely known), but there was a lot of arguing between states about this. In some states the vote was originally available to more people before being restricted.
- Early on candidates persuaded people to vote with booze filled parties. A lot of early anti-women voting arguments were originally about protecting them from these parties (bizarrely).
- Lots of long discussions between founders about what it would mean to having a voting public, fear of the public vs. aristocrats, potential abuse of government, and the rise of a tyrannical leader, etc.
I liked this argument from Ben Franklin:
“Imagine that a man owns a donkey, and so he gets the right to vote. And in the next four years, he learns a lot more about politics and current events and becomes a more equipped citizen, but his donkey dies, and you want to take his vote away because he no longer owns property? So who, pray tell, does the right to vote reside in? The man or the ass?”
It isn't really as bad as it looks. A lot of it is just aggravating people to make them more likely to actually go out and vote.
I've lived in the USA for over half a century. I have never seen a single person denied a vote, not even once. I have white friends, black friends, friends of all kinds. I have never had one of my friends or family 'disenfranchised'.
Okay, but in those 50 years has there ever been a pandemic that necessitated the use of universal mail in voting? And during that pandemic, did the incumbent President explicitly use his authority over the post office to prevent mail in voting? The USPS sure seems to think these measures will lead to disenfranchised voters:
I'm sure the objections to mail-in voting would disappear if positive Id were a reality.
Maybe fingerprints, a PIN, anything. As it sits, it does look susceptible to fraud. Pandemic or not, we shouldn't make major changes without ensuring integrity, IMHO.
Considering the current climate surrounding the USPS, if you vote by mail you should drop it off yourself at the local election office.
The law in several states is based upon when they receive it. If it is postmarked in time but they receive it late, your vote literally gets thrown away.
We just voted by mail here in Fl (for the August 18 elections) and we were able to see when our ballot was received and counted. No delays. Some cities fortunately do have this figured out.
At least 40% of the voting population is going to come to another conclusion. Maybe more. This is actually what people want even if we don't understand why.
Just two lifetimes ago hundreds of thousands of propertyless young men fought and died for the privilege to compete against slave labor in...an agricultural society. Not all believed in the cause. Most probably didn't. But many did.
The reaction to his election traumatized me. For the first time in my life I felt like a foreigner in my own country.
I disagree with most of his policy positions. His tax cut was too small, his insistence on opening the public schools is baffling to me given how the public school system manufactures his opposition. He was never able to build the wall, although I expected that. Ultimately I can work with my disagreements with him and the right more broadly. There is room for compromise there.
But watching the left since 2016 and especially recently after the death of George Floyd, policy matters don't concern me much anymore. I'm afraid of the left. I feel intimidated by their vast cultural and social power. And I'm going to vote for someone that unapologetically opposes them.
I know that doesn't really answer your question as you asked it. But there it is anyway.
Not just murdered. He held his knee on a mans neck for eight minutes and forty six seconds! He held it on there for minutes after he became unconscious and other people yelled at him to stop! There is no excuse.
What I've noticed about your reply is that you didn't actually mention a policy achievement but a reaction to a perceived change in the country. It doesn't sound like your life is better. It sounds like you're worried about dramatic change even though the last four years has been tumultuous.
If that's the case, why do you want to vote for four more years of that?
More questions:
Why are you afraid of the left? What outcomes are you afraid of in particular?
The Trump administration has deployed federal forces to states that have not requested asked for any help. Do you believe this is necessary? And if so, why? Do you worry what precedents this sets for the left should Democrats take the Senate and White House?
What do you think about DeJoy's decision to functionally slow the speed of the Post Office?
How do you find Trump's handling of the coronavirus in comparison to leaders in Europe and Asia?
How do you think four more years of Trump will improve your life?
"Media coverage of the nation’s standing would change dramatically after a Biden victory, even if the reality does not. Mr. Biden promises increased federal coronavirus spending, but as president he couldn’t override governors’ authority to restrict economic activity, and he doesn’t propose to alter Mr. Trump’s program to accelerate vaccine and treatment development. With Mr. Trump embracing masks and trillions in federal spending, and high case totals in blue California and red Florida alike, a Biden victory wouldn’t change the epidemic’s trajectory. Yet, as the media hailed Gov. Andrew Cuomo despite his disastrous policy of transferring coronavirus patients into nursing homes and New York’s record high deaths, Mr. Biden’s election would also miraculously transform the virus from an existential threat into a manageable hindrance."
I'll bite! You get a screed! I'll address every question you raised...
> If that's the case, why do you want to vote for four more years of that?
Tumultuous does not imply worse. A high variance process can have zero mean.
> Why are you afraid of the left?
The Constitution was designed to handle an attack by disperse interests. It was not designed to handle a coordinated assault on the executive and the simultaneous watering down of the judiciary (e.g. court packing). Ten years ago I could say stupid things in public without being afraid for my livelihood. Now, I worry when I will cancelled for speaking aloud what I believe will help my fellow citizens. This is wrong and wholly attributable to the left. I can say progressive things around right-leaning friends. I dare not more than suggest non-orthodoxy around my left-leaning ones.
> What outcomes are you afraid of in particular?
That the notion of equality under the law is lost for the notion of absolute equality (i.e. interpreting the Declaration's "created equal" for instantaneous equality as defined by the mob du jour). That an increasing number of my personally earned dollars will be confiscated to support ends with which I disagree. For example, the Fed has no business addressing inequality as suggested by the Biden platform. Those poor bastards have enough trouble with monetary policy as we've agreed upon it for the past several decades.
> The Trump administration has deployed federal forces to states that have not requested asked for any help. Do you believe this is necessary?
Yes.
> And if so, why?
By what right does a state government decide to allow the destruction of Federal property? The Federal government serves the interests of the other 49 states when it shows up in 1 to address civil disorder. Did the other 49 states all say that they wanted the Federal government to turn a blind eye? We're all in this nation together.
> Do you worry what precedents this sets for the left should Democrats take the Senate and White House?
Absolutely. All unconstitutional concentrations of power in the legislative, executive, or the judiciary undermine the the dispersion of power aimed for by the Founders. Prior to Trump, Obama had a field day with executive actions. Both should be hung out to dry for what they did. Both allowed the legislators to avoid hard choices and instead ruled by dictat. When the executive steps in, it allows the legislative to skirt their jobs. We elect those asshats to make choices, not point fingers and make speeches.
> What do you think about DeJoy's decision to functionally slow the speed of the Post Office?
The legislative branch can do what it wants to the USPS. Let the legislative branch sort it out. In particular, if the House is unhappy let the House put forward legislation in the manner that Congress should pass all laws as set forth under the Constitution. Let the elected members of the Senate suffer the brunt of their constituents if those constituents do not like how the Senate votes on the House's proposal. It's a great system so rely on it.
> How do you find Trump's handling of the coronavirus in comparison to leaders in Europe and Asia?
See the peer comment. Generally, fine as evidenced by https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat.... There is a lot of fearmongering and virtue-signaling baked into the Covid response commentary. I believe kneecapping the economy in the short term is the wrong choice in the long term.
> How do you think four more years of Trump will improve your life?
The past four years has improved my quality of life vs what I suspect would have been the alternative. The economy was humming (humming!) prior to Covid appearing. Imagine the current economic situation ...
I'm afraid that the history of my country will be permanently revised and that my children will learn the revised version instead of the patriotic one. I fear I'll have to correct everything they learn about history and language.
I'm afraid that the public school system and the universities will convert my children from happy and productive citizens into angry activists.
I'm afraid that a portion of most products I buy will wind up supporting causes that are detrimental to my own interests, as the left has somehow gained control of the board rooms of major corporations.
I live in a dark blue state under lockdown and I fear we'll never truly be freed from it. I worry that the left will once again dispatch extremists to my neighborhood because of some unpredictable future event that sets them off.
I believe the left hates men, boys, white Americans, and Christians. I'm most of those things and you couldn't induce me to vote for a Democrat even if you paid me FIRE money right now.
I know that only answers your first question. I don't know who DeJoy is. I don't care about the post office. And I don't care about his response to the virus. In my opinion, the government has no role to play in virus handling.
I don't support the president because of his polices. I support him because he opposes the left. The only thing he could do to lose my support is to cave into them.
>But watching the left since 2016 and especially recently after the death of George Floyd, policy matters don't concern me much anymore. I'm afraid of the left. I feel intimidated by their vast cultural and social power. And I'm going to vote for someone that unapologetically opposes them.
I suspect that rioters burning half of Minneapolis down won Minnesota for Trump, after coming within 1.5% of winning the state in 2016. (Yes, the only state that voted for Mondale in 1984.) If he wins all other states he won in 2016, Trump only has to win one of Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for reelection. Look at how close polls are there already (https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/minnesota-2020-... let's see how things look in another month or two, when people are less afraid of being called a racist for vocalizing dislike of violent "protests", even to a pollster.
Don't count out other states, like Oregon and Washington, that saw and are seeing continued violence in the name of Floyd and BLM.
I've disengaged from the news since shortly after COVID started so I had to DuckDuckGo what you meant. I see a 38 minute interview on YouTube that I could watch, but unless in it he announces his support for abolishing the police or canceling American history, I doubt it would change anything.
Voting is really the absolute minimum you could do to effect political change.
You can magnify your influence by not just voting but also volunteering for and donating to political organizations, getting involved in local politics (such as running for office yourself or sitting on local boards), becoming and organizer yourself, and educating yourself and others on the issues, organizations, techniques, history, and people involved in politics.
77 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] threadI will for damn sure be voting in the general, but my local rep is running uncontested, my state has a polling average of ~+40 biden, and no local ballot measures of any interest are included this cycle, so all i’m doing is bumping the popular vote a bit in an extremely predictable direction as far as top of the ticket is concerned.
Downballot, we have a right to repair measure that I think is important, but not a lot else.
edit: just to be clear, I _love_ voting, I take my obligations seriously, it's one of my favorite civic activities, I am well aware of the importance of local politics. Mostly, I am equal parts relieved that we're here again, and only disappointed that the pandemic is almost certainly going to preclude my usual celebratory post-voting girl scout bake-sale brownie at my polling place.
Not in this election they aren't.
(And then occasionally - you don't know when - it will also matter mathematically.)
For a "bastion of democracy and freedom", America has some major problems with its most basic rights.
It's a FACT- not an opinion.
President Trump talking about proposed electoral reforms:
“They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/30/trump-republ...
Either way, this last minute effort to expand mail in voting may not be fraudulent, but it's way too easy to allege fraud, and results will simply take too long to be tallied for anyone to actually trust the election.
The legitimacy of an institution is oftentimes equally backed by the perceptions of trust and respect of that institution as much as it is backed by the actual functionality of that institution.
Regardless of who you back or how much you trust the authenticity of vote by mail, too many people do not trust the other side to not cheat. And even if you assume we live in a world where voter fraud isn't possible for vote by mail, the veracity of the election can be attacked with little effort.
Imagine we're two or three weeks into November and still counting votes. A rogue actor prints tens of thousands of fake ballots. They don't need to actually count them, they just nee to make it public- "hey we found a bunch of lost (party of your choice) ballots!". That's what's scary to me. Suddenly, no one has faith that the other side didn't cheat. If I were Xi(China)- this is exactly what I'd be doing right now. It'd be laughably easy for a foreign state actor to absolutely destroy our faith in the election process right now.
Maybe the quote lost some context but talking about “...levels of voting...” being a negative thing seems like a pretty obvious admission of a desire to suppress votes.
No, they don't deserve the legitimacy of being engaged with as if what's going on isn't criminal or corrupt. It is, and those are the facts on the ground.
Democrats controlled the house continuously for 40 years until 1994, due in no small part to gerrymandering. Republican-advantage gerrymandering (on a nationwide basis) dates to only about 2010.
> Democrats controlled the house continuously for 40 years until 1994,
1955-1995, actually, and yet it is still true that the current Republican effort (which also includes gerrymandering, but also all the other factors list by GP) has been in place for decades. (1995 was two and a half decades ago, and the Republican strategy being discussed started before they took control of the House.)
And, yes, some of the other bits besides gerrymandering also used to be Democratic strategies, especially racially-targeted restrictions on voting rights before the parties switched sides on race issues in a process that included Johnson's embrace of civil rights followed by the Republican subsequent exploitation of that and pursuit of disaffected ex-Democratic racists as a core voting bloc.
It’s easy to take my right to vote and ability to vote relatively easily for granted, and that’s a major lesson we’re learning in 2020.
Personally I think that the US should go the route of a national voting holiday.
Agree. Voting is important, and a voting holiday calls that out.
Concrete examples that did not exist at founding include:
- social programs (welfare, social security, unemployment benefits)
- high levels of military spending/military industrial complex
- income tax
- many of the executive branch regulatory and other agencies
etc.
Would voting in Germany be so non-political under the same circumstances? Obviously, voting shouldn't be political. We should pick voting rules without discriminating based on race, naturalization status, etc. That's the ideal we should strive to achieve. My point is different: human nature being what it is, it's worth asking whether anyone is really doing better under similar circumstances. And if they are doing things better, what are they doing that we could be copying?
Generally, in a democracy, more voting is, at least publicly, considered better (in private, of course, some party officials might disagree, but the backlash if they tried to _do_ anything about it would be unthinkable).
I actually wonder to what extent this is a function of how democracy developed in the US vs everywhere. At least in the popular mythology, voting went from available to all male members of the ethnic majority, to all members of the ethnic majority, to everyone (this isn't actually quite true; a number of southern states had property qualifications for whites pre-civil war). Whereas a more common pattern of development elsewhere was the vote for practically no-one -> the vote for a very few (property qualifications) -> the vote for all men -> the vote for everyone. Most people in Europe will need to look back no more than a few generations to see where _their_ family wasn't able to vote, which may cause people to be more defensive of the institution.
There's also the example of history; most of Europe's 20th century totalitarian regimes screwed with voting early in their development.
If you look at the map, you see not a very strong correlation with the idea that Republicans remove voting rights from felons because they lean democrats(which I assume is what you were getting at). Literally only two states don't restrict felon voting rights, and that is Maine and and Vermont. If there was some voter suppression operating against Democratic leaning felons, one would assume states like California, New York, and Massachusetts would not restrict felon voting - but they do.
Once people have served their time they deserve to rejoin society. They are imperfect human beings, but human beings nonetheless. Plus stuff like drug offenses count as felonies and I don't think those people deserve to be ostracized for a lifetime.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/30/trump-vot...
Reminds me of the famous quote: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."
I'm about a quarter of the way through this book which tackles this issue in detail throughout US history: https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Vote-Michael-Waldman/dp/1501116...
I'd recommend it so far if it's something you're interested in.
I found it from this interview which is also good, might be worth listening to this first before deciding to pick up the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgVuJiMxOb4
Some quick tidbits:
- Initially the public couldn't vote for senators who were chosen by state legislature.
- Initially the public couldn't vote for president.
- Initially the 'public' was white men with property (this one is more widely known), but there was a lot of arguing between states about this. In some states the vote was originally available to more people before being restricted.
- Early on candidates persuaded people to vote with booze filled parties. A lot of early anti-women voting arguments were originally about protecting them from these parties (bizarrely).
- Lots of long discussions between founders about what it would mean to having a voting public, fear of the public vs. aristocrats, potential abuse of government, and the rise of a tyrannical leader, etc.
I liked this argument from Ben Franklin:
“Imagine that a man owns a donkey, and so he gets the right to vote. And in the next four years, he learns a lot more about politics and current events and becomes a more equipped citizen, but his donkey dies, and you want to take his vote away because he no longer owns property? So who, pray tell, does the right to vote reside in? The man or the ass?”
I've lived in the USA for over half a century. I have never seen a single person denied a vote, not even once. I have white friends, black friends, friends of all kinds. I have never had one of my friends or family 'disenfranchised'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/usps-states...
Maybe fingerprints, a PIN, anything. As it sits, it does look susceptible to fraud. Pandemic or not, we shouldn't make major changes without ensuring integrity, IMHO.
https://www.youtube.com/c/howtovoteineverystate
I like those because it’s sometimes easier to share video content with people.
The law in several states is based upon when they receive it. If it is postmarked in time but they receive it late, your vote literally gets thrown away.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mail-voting/20...
Surely the answer is: Anyone except Trump!
Just two lifetimes ago hundreds of thousands of propertyless young men fought and died for the privilege to compete against slave labor in...an agricultural society. Not all believed in the cause. Most probably didn't. But many did.
People do strange things for stranger reasons.
I disagree with most of his policy positions. His tax cut was too small, his insistence on opening the public schools is baffling to me given how the public school system manufactures his opposition. He was never able to build the wall, although I expected that. Ultimately I can work with my disagreements with him and the right more broadly. There is room for compromise there.
But watching the left since 2016 and especially recently after the death of George Floyd, policy matters don't concern me much anymore. I'm afraid of the left. I feel intimidated by their vast cultural and social power. And I'm going to vote for someone that unapologetically opposes them.
I know that doesn't really answer your question as you asked it. But there it is anyway.
If that's the case, why do you want to vote for four more years of that?
More questions:
Why are you afraid of the left? What outcomes are you afraid of in particular?
The Trump administration has deployed federal forces to states that have not requested asked for any help. Do you believe this is necessary? And if so, why? Do you worry what precedents this sets for the left should Democrats take the Senate and White House?
What do you think about DeJoy's decision to functionally slow the speed of the Post Office?
How do you find Trump's handling of the coronavirus in comparison to leaders in Europe and Asia?
How do you think four more years of Trump will improve your life?
"Media coverage of the nation’s standing would change dramatically after a Biden victory, even if the reality does not. Mr. Biden promises increased federal coronavirus spending, but as president he couldn’t override governors’ authority to restrict economic activity, and he doesn’t propose to alter Mr. Trump’s program to accelerate vaccine and treatment development. With Mr. Trump embracing masks and trillions in federal spending, and high case totals in blue California and red Florida alike, a Biden victory wouldn’t change the epidemic’s trajectory. Yet, as the media hailed Gov. Andrew Cuomo despite his disastrous policy of transferring coronavirus patients into nursing homes and New York’s record high deaths, Mr. Biden’s election would also miraculously transform the virus from an existential threat into a manageable hindrance."
> If that's the case, why do you want to vote for four more years of that?
Tumultuous does not imply worse. A high variance process can have zero mean.
> Why are you afraid of the left?
The Constitution was designed to handle an attack by disperse interests. It was not designed to handle a coordinated assault on the executive and the simultaneous watering down of the judiciary (e.g. court packing). Ten years ago I could say stupid things in public without being afraid for my livelihood. Now, I worry when I will cancelled for speaking aloud what I believe will help my fellow citizens. This is wrong and wholly attributable to the left. I can say progressive things around right-leaning friends. I dare not more than suggest non-orthodoxy around my left-leaning ones.
> What outcomes are you afraid of in particular?
That the notion of equality under the law is lost for the notion of absolute equality (i.e. interpreting the Declaration's "created equal" for instantaneous equality as defined by the mob du jour). That an increasing number of my personally earned dollars will be confiscated to support ends with which I disagree. For example, the Fed has no business addressing inequality as suggested by the Biden platform. Those poor bastards have enough trouble with monetary policy as we've agreed upon it for the past several decades.
> The Trump administration has deployed federal forces to states that have not requested asked for any help. Do you believe this is necessary?
Yes.
> And if so, why?
By what right does a state government decide to allow the destruction of Federal property? The Federal government serves the interests of the other 49 states when it shows up in 1 to address civil disorder. Did the other 49 states all say that they wanted the Federal government to turn a blind eye? We're all in this nation together.
> Do you worry what precedents this sets for the left should Democrats take the Senate and White House?
Absolutely. All unconstitutional concentrations of power in the legislative, executive, or the judiciary undermine the the dispersion of power aimed for by the Founders. Prior to Trump, Obama had a field day with executive actions. Both should be hung out to dry for what they did. Both allowed the legislators to avoid hard choices and instead ruled by dictat. When the executive steps in, it allows the legislative to skirt their jobs. We elect those asshats to make choices, not point fingers and make speeches.
> What do you think about DeJoy's decision to functionally slow the speed of the Post Office?
The legislative branch can do what it wants to the USPS. Let the legislative branch sort it out. In particular, if the House is unhappy let the House put forward legislation in the manner that Congress should pass all laws as set forth under the Constitution. Let the elected members of the Senate suffer the brunt of their constituents if those constituents do not like how the Senate votes on the House's proposal. It's a great system so rely on it.
> How do you find Trump's handling of the coronavirus in comparison to leaders in Europe and Asia?
See the peer comment. Generally, fine as evidenced by https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deat.... There is a lot of fearmongering and virtue-signaling baked into the Covid response commentary. I believe kneecapping the economy in the short term is the wrong choice in the long term.
> How do you think four more years of Trump will improve your life?
The past four years has improved my quality of life vs what I suspect would have been the alternative. The economy was humming (humming!) prior to Covid appearing. Imagine the current economic situation ...
I'm afraid that the history of my country will be permanently revised and that my children will learn the revised version instead of the patriotic one. I fear I'll have to correct everything they learn about history and language.
I'm afraid that the public school system and the universities will convert my children from happy and productive citizens into angry activists.
I'm afraid that a portion of most products I buy will wind up supporting causes that are detrimental to my own interests, as the left has somehow gained control of the board rooms of major corporations.
I live in a dark blue state under lockdown and I fear we'll never truly be freed from it. I worry that the left will once again dispatch extremists to my neighborhood because of some unpredictable future event that sets them off.
I believe the left hates men, boys, white Americans, and Christians. I'm most of those things and you couldn't induce me to vote for a Democrat even if you paid me FIRE money right now.
I know that only answers your first question. I don't know who DeJoy is. I don't care about the post office. And I don't care about his response to the virus. In my opinion, the government has no role to play in virus handling.
I don't support the president because of his polices. I support him because he opposes the left. The only thing he could do to lose my support is to cave into them.
I suspect that rioters burning half of Minneapolis down won Minnesota for Trump, after coming within 1.5% of winning the state in 2016. (Yes, the only state that voted for Mondale in 1984.) If he wins all other states he won in 2016, Trump only has to win one of Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for reelection. Look at how close polls are there already (https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/minnesota-2020-... let's see how things look in another month or two, when people are less afraid of being called a racist for vocalizing dislike of violent "protests", even to a pollster.
Don't count out other states, like Oregon and Washington, that saw and are seeing continued violence in the name of Floyd and BLM.
Did you watch the full Axios interview with Swan and what were your thoughts on it?
Vote by mail is election fraud
You can magnify your influence by not just voting but also volunteering for and donating to political organizations, getting involved in local politics (such as running for office yourself or sitting on local boards), becoming and organizer yourself, and educating yourself and others on the issues, organizations, techniques, history, and people involved in politics.