View Full Version : suppressing votes key to republican victory
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/19/1028056/-South-Carolina-GOP-operative-admits-suppressing-black-vote-is-goal-of-voter%C2%A0ID-law
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/republican-doctrine-on-suppressing-black-vote-is-key-to-md-case-and-maybe-to-2012/2011/06/17/AGKPaSZH_story.html
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/10/mark_kirk_the_republican_us.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830
If you can't win in a legitimate election, cheat. Or lie, or steal. Must be job 2 of the republican party since, of course, we know what job 1 is.
There is NO evidence of widespread voter fraud in any of these states, or even a little voter fraud. In fact, when there is voter fraud it is carried out with the voter machines themselves or in transportation of votes, etc... But even then it's hard to find a widespread case. This is Americans trying to keep other Americans from lawfully voting simply because they can't win any other way. This is incredibly shameful and if the OWS wants a purpose, well, here is a good one. They should occupy the state house of every republican legislature who tries these nasty, transparent tactics.
In Arizona the Republican house impeached the independent head of the congressional redistricting committee because she did not redraw the congressional districts the way they wanted. The committee came up with 3 districts favoring Republicans and 2 Democrats and 3 districts would be competitive. I guess the Republicans wanted all the the congressional seats a sure thing for them.
Democracy at work!
In Arizona the Republican house impeached the independent head of the congressional redistricting committee because she did not redraw the congressional districts the way they wanted. The committee came up with 3 districts favoring Republicans and 2 Democrats and 3 districts would be competitive. I guess the Republicans wanted all the the congressional seats a sure thing for them.
Democracy at work!
I believe that was actually the Senate voting to accept the Governor's decision to fire an independant commission head. Seems it had something to do with that commission head violating the state's Open Meeting law when she hired a Democrat mapping consultant.
It really does sound like democracy in action to me.
I believe that was actually the Senate voting to accept the Governor's decision to fire an independant commission head. Seems it had something to do with that commission head violating the state's Open Meeting law when she hired a Democrat mapping consultant.
It really does sound like democracy in action to me.
Somehow I don't think they would have done it if it has been a "Republican" mapping consultant, even though it would have still been a violation of the open meeting law.
Somehow I don't think they would have done it if it has been a "Republican" mapping consultant, even though it would have still been a violation of the open meeting law.
Probably, politics in a mean spirited business.
as i have always understood it, the more people vote, the more democrats win.
especially with young people. although the elderly are all about protecting social security right now (even before caring about the economy).
I believe that was actually the Senate voting to accept the Governor's decision to fire an independant commission head. Seems it had something to do with that commission head violating the state's Open Meeting law when she hired a Democrat mapping consultant.
It really does sound like democracy in action to me.
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, it's the opposite of democracy. A little history: Arizona voters amended their state constitution in 2000 specifically to remove the redistricting process from the legislature and create an Independent Redistricting Commission. This is the first time it's been used because we've just had the 2010 census, and Arizona has gained a congressional seat.
It's a 5 person commision, 2 Democrats, 2 Republicans and one Independent who is the Chair. They start with a clean slate. Before they drew a single line on the map there were [B]23 public hearings[B] with a court reporter recording every word. The draft maps are also put online on the website. You can also fax comments, and even submit your own maps. It is a completely transparent process.
The Republicans are upset precisely because this process is so important and they can't control it - it affects the outcome of every election for the next 10 years, both federal and state. They are losing ground in voter registration: as of today, Arizona is split roughly into 1/3 Republican, 1/3 Democrat, and 1/3 Independent. And the proposed maps? Of 9 districts, 4 of them (45%) would be "safe" Republican, 2 of them (22%) would be "safe" Democrat, and 3 of them would be considered "competitive" meaning the ability to predict the outcome of the election is fairly low. You'd think the Republicans would be thrilled, but No.
bottom line: the Chair, who has often voted with the Democrats and quickly earned her the Republican's ire, was suddenly charged with "gross misconduct" for allegedly violating an Open Meeting Law when she telephoned the commissioners individually once to ask a question vs. having them all on the line at the same time. And the "Democratic" map consulting company has done work for both parties, but again, any association with any Democrat at any time "taints" them as Democrat and therefore presumably anti-Republican.
There's more at this blogger's site who has followed it all very closely: http://stevemuratore.blogspot.com/
The one bright spot is that this will likely go to the AZ State Supreme Court which has excellent judges and is expected to quash this ouster.
as i have always understood it, the more people vote, the more democrats win.
especially with young people. although the elderly are all about protecting social security right now (even before caring about the economy).
I think that's true. We've reached the point where a majority of our citizens wish to vote themselves benefits from the public treasury and that's what the Democrats are all about. Unfortunately, it tends to bankrupt democracies. Talk about a catch 22.
Vote suppression targets the elderly who don't drive and cannot easily get to a state agency for photo ID. My mother would have been disenfranchised by these new laws, had they existed where she lived.
And of course the elderly (and everyone else) should be about protecting Social Security for now and forever. Just remove the payroll tax cap. There's no reason why we can't all support a robust economy and old-age and disability pensions simultaneously.
Unfortunately, it's the opposite of democracy....
I guess that depends upon how you define the inner workings of a democracy.
According to the Arizona State Constitution: http://www.azleg.gov/const/4/1.p2.htm
After having been served written notice and provided with an opportunity for a response, a member of the independent redistricting commission may be removed by the governor, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the senate, for substantial neglect of duty, gross misconduct in office, or inability to discharge the duties of office.
It would appear that the method used to remove the commissioner from office was authorized by the constitution and carried out according to it's requirements. While you may question the motivation, the constitution was followed to the letter. How could that be un-democratic?
I guess that depends upon how you define the inner workings of a democracy.
According to the Arizona State Constitution: http://www.azleg.gov/const/4/1.p2.htm
It would appear that the method used to remove the commissioner from office was authorized by the constitution and carried out according to it's requirements. While you may question the motivation, the constitution was followed to the letter. How could that be un-democratic?
It's not the method, its that it's a trumped up charge that does not rise to the level of "gross misconduct."
And as I understand it, she wasn't given the opportunity to answer to the 'charges' or say anything in her own defense. She was just sent packing. This is why they will toss this out I'm sure. It was nothing more than a power grab by the republican Governor and republican senate.
"Voter ID is not a simple attempt to prove who you are before you vote; it is instead a cloaked effort to protect us from a supposed threat of voter fraud that according to scientific studies does not exist. Plainly speaking, the voter ID bill is intended to suppress votes, and that's bad public policy and bad politics." Paul Hunt - Presidio County Judge
The idea of suppressing the vote in this country should be a wake-up call for those that have always considered their vote suspect. As long as those that control our government are determined to squash any descent by exploiting the "dumb and dumber" then our futures are in jeopardy.
Does anyone really believe that voter fraud by individual citizens is equal to voter fraud by political manipulation? As BAE says, "I've got a island..."
Peace
there was a great documentary on HBO about two years ago maybe? about the issue of the voting machines, how easy they are to "rig" and so on. fascinating stuff.
"He who votes controls nothing. He who counts the votes controls everything." Credited to Josef Stalin (although since he was a totalitarian dictator I'm not sure why he would care). Maybe we should concentrate on how the votes are actually tallied because altering the count at the end would be a far more efficient way to manipulate results than simply "discouraging" certain groups from voting. And maybe, as long as we're on the subject of somewhat dubious election practices, its time to do away with the electoral college.
....as long as we're on the subject of somewhat dubious election practices, its time to do away with the electoral college.
Well, that would pretty much remove the last vestige of influence that the states have over the federal government.
At that point, would you consider the individual states to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things?
"He who votes controls nothing. He who counts the votes controls everything." Credited to Josef Stalin (although since he was a totalitarian dictator I'm not sure why he would care). Maybe we should concentrate on how the votes are actually tallied because altering the count at the end would be a far more efficient way to manipulate results than simply "discouraging" certain groups from voting. And maybe, as long as we're on the subject of somewhat dubious election practices, its time to do away with the electoral college.
+1
Well, that would pretty much remove the last vestige of influence that the states have over the federal government.
At that point, would you consider the individual states to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things?
It's 'by the people, for the people..' remember? No matter where you lived, no matter how red (wrong ;)) your state was, your voice could be heard.
It's 'by the people, for the people..' remember? No matter where you lived, no matter how red (wrong ;)) your state was, your voice could be heard.
Except that without an electoral college, it would then be "by the highly concentrated population centers, for the highly concentrated population centers".
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, etc., could pretty much control the presidential elections leaving entire states such as North Dakota, Utah, Alaska, etc., without a voice at all.
Progressives do believe in a progressive form of representation don't they?
i have no issue with the ec. it functions well. same with the population-based representation, IMO.
Except that without an electoral college, it would then be "by the highly concentrated population centers, for the highly concentrated population centers".
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, etc., could pretty much control the presidential elections leaving entire states such as North Dakota, Utah, Alaska, etc., without a voice at all.
Progressives do believe in a progressive form of representation don't they?
yeesss....so you have a problem with people, who may or may not congregate in certain places, being one voice one vote? Dude, if corporations can be 'people' then how can you have a problem with actual people being people?
Federal votes have federal consequences, no matter where you live. Doesn't matter if you live 2 people per square mile or 2 million people per square mile. 5 people living in Wyoming shouldn't have an equal voice with 5000 people living somewhere else. That totally discredits 4995 voices. Now, with local elections, that only affect that state, those 5 will have a voice against others in their community. But in a national community, every voice should have EQUAL weight. What's wrong with that?
I would think that someone who advocates people carry GUNS to political rallies is all about each voice being heard. You wouldn't want to disarm those 4995 people, now would you? ;)
i think it's really weighing a lot of different factors -- it was started in a time when there was less broad education, so 1 vote did not equal 1 vote.
i can see both sides of the argument, personally.
Well, that would pretty much remove the last vestige of influence that the states have over the federal government.
At that point, would you consider the individual states to be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things?
I'd like to reply and work through this Alan, but I'm not quite sure I'm following your argument here. Care to elaborate a little bit?
I'd like to reply and work through this Alan, but I'm not quite sure I'm following your argument here. Care to elaborate a little bit?
I guess my argument would be that the Electoral College maintains a federal system of government and representation. In a formal federal structure, important political powers are reserved to the component States. For example, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the States according to the size of their population. The States are even responsible for drawing the district lines for their House seats. The Senate was designed to represent each State equally regardless of its population. And the Electoral College was designed to represent each State's choice for the presidency (with the number of each State's electoral votes being the number of its Senators plus the number of its Representatives). To abolish the Electoral College in favor of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government - to the detriment of the States.
If we become obsessed with government by popular majority as the only consideration, should we not then abolish the Senate which represents States regardless of population? Should we not correct the minor distortions in the House (caused by districting and by guaranteeing each State at least one Representative) by changing it to a system of proportional representation? This would accomplish "government by popular majority" but it would also demolish our federal system of government. If there are reasons to maintain State representation in the Senate and House as they exist today, then surely these same reasons apply to the choice of president. Dontcha think?
I've always thought the Electoral College was designed as a last circuit breaker. If a candidate too repugnant to the elite or those in currently in power won the popular vote, they could still be pushed out.
One could maintain the system of an electoral college without putting people into the roles to cast the votes. If the system wasn't suppose to allow the possibility of the elector voting other than the way the votes turned out, they could be eliminated and probably save quite a bit of time and money.
Its really not so much the electoral college as a whole that bothers me as it is the 'winner take all' rule regarding how the votes are granted to candidates. Last I heard 48 of the 50 states plus D.C. all use that rule. Maine and my home state of Nebraska are the only renegades that allow electoral votes to be split. Here in Huskerville we have 5 electoral votes. Two are assigned to a candidate by virtue of winning the state's popular vote. The other three are assigned based on who won the popular vote in each of our three congressional districts. In the last presidential election Mr. Obama received one electoral vote and John McCain the other four. That is a very accurate representation of how the state was split.
Splitting electoral votes could have a significant impact beyond just giving a more accurate picture of how the country voted. Winner take all makes it virtually impossible for any third party candidate to truly have an impact. The classic example may be Ross Perot back in 1992. He won close to 20% of the popular vote, but did not win a single electoral vote. There are enough movements in the country right now (from the Tea Party to OWS and anything in between) that the birth of a third party could be a consideration. If we take these boards as a cross section of the country then a socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidate or party should enjoy broad support, but wouldn't get far with the DNC or RNC. If the electoral votes from all states could be split to better reflect the support candidates get from the actual voters more moderate candidates, and even that proverbial third party, might become viable.
I can see that, Gregg. It's a great consideration.
Its really not so much the electoral college as a whole that bothers me as it is the 'winner take all' rule regarding how the votes are granted to candidates. Last I heard 48 of the 50 states plus D.C. all use that rule. Maine and my home state of Nebraska are the only renegades that allow electoral votes to be split. Here in Huskerville we have 5 electoral votes. Two are assigned to a candidate by virtue of winning the state's popular vote. The other three are assigned based on who won the popular vote in each of our three congressional districts. In the last presidential election Mr. Obama received one electoral vote and John McCain the other four. That is a very accurate representation of how the state was split.
Splitting electoral votes could have a significant impact beyond just giving a more accurate picture of how the country voted. Winner take all makes it virtually impossible for any third party candidate to truly have an impact. The classic example may be Ross Perot back in 1992. He won close to 20% of the popular vote, but did not win a single electoral vote. There are enough movements in the country right now (from the Tea Party to OWS and anything in between) that the birth of a third party could be a consideration. If we take these boards as a cross section of the country then a socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidate or party should enjoy broad support, but wouldn't get far with the DNC or RNC. If the electoral votes from all states could be split to better reflect the support candidates get from the actual voters more moderate candidates, and even that proverbial third party, might become viable.
Exactly. Getting rid of the electoral college would break the strangle hold the two parties have on the process.
Alan, sorry guy but your argument makes no sense at all. Letting the true vote for president determine the outcome, as in one man/woman, one vote, would in no way destroy the federal government. That's just a nonsense statement. Again, 5 people in wyo should NOT have the same voice as 5000 people in another state. The structure of the Senate or congress wouldn't be affected by letting all votes be counted and tallied as they are cast. 5 people in wyo would still be 5 people in wyo and 5 million in NY would still be 5 million in NY. Each state would still be represented according to their population.
I'm surprised that a tea party guy such as yourself would be afraid of the true voice of the people being heard as in getting the guy/gal they actually voted for. What are you afraid of? Do you think your party can't get the votes to win? If they can't then, they aren't the people's choice. The electoral college was instituted simply because it was the most practical way to do it. But it's not 1776 anymore, and we can have an accurate count of every one's vote within hours.
It's time to step into the modern world and practice what we preach. One man, one vote.
Exactly. Getting rid of the electoral college would break the strangle hold the two parties have on the process.
Alan, sorry guy but your argument makes no sense at all. Letting the true vote for president determine the outcome, as in one man/woman, one vote, would in no way destroy the federal government.
You misunderstand. I'm not concerned with destroying the federal government. My concern is with the loss of federalism.
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/ for a quick tutorial on the concept, or for a more satisfactory exploration consider the cumulative history of the United States.
You misunderstand. I'm not concerned with destroying the federal government. My concern is with the loss of federalism.
See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/federalism/ for a quick tutorial on the concept, or for a more satisfactory exploration consider the cumulative history of the United States.
I still don't understand your argument Alan. Having one man one vote wouldn't take powers from the states. The states would still be represented in congress in exactly the same way. We are only talking about the Presidential race here. This National level election, above all others, should be one man one vote. THE PEOPLE should get the man/woman they voted for. Period. If I vote for someone, and the majority of my fellow countrymen vote for that person, you durn right I expect that person to be President. Do you think people who live in large population areas shouldn't count as much? Are you concerned that the large population areas tend to be more left leaning? These people are citizens on equal footing as you or I.
If it were one man one vote, then every vote really would count. That might get more people involved in the process. I thought taking the powers away from government, at all levels, and putting it back into the hands of the people where possible was a tea party thing. What more power for the people than knowing each and every vote does count, and isn't just a slogan.
Maybe I'm just not getting your argument. Please explain, in simple terms, how in your mind doing away with the electoral college affects federalism.
I'm also a bit of a Federalist, at least in the classic and limited definition of the term. What I don't see is how revision of the electoral college threatens that. Take a big state like California, they have 55 total electoral votes, which is huge. In 2008 Mr. Obama received 61% of the popular vote there and Mr. McCain got 37%, but 100% of the electoral votes went to Mr. Obama. To me that says more than 1/3 of the citizens (what? 12,000,000 people?) were not represented in the decision to elect a president. It doesn't seem right to me.
On the other side of the coin, I've re-thought doing away with the electoral system as a whole. When you look at a combination of states or a region of the country it makes more sense than concentrating on a single state. Alaska, Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Utah, Colorado, Kansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico have 66 electoral votes COMBINED. That is a little over 12% of the 538 total electoral votes. Those states also happen to represent more than half of the land area of the entire country along with all the natural resources contained there. If you eliminate the equal distribution of 2 votes per state this group of western states would only have 38 out of 436 votes, or >9%, making it that much easier for more populated states to run roughshod over them. I do feel it is important to give at least a small weighted advantage (aka, a little larger voice) to large areas with limited population that are very likely to be effected by Federal legislation.
Well that's true Gregg, but the President still has to go through congress to 'run roughshod' over anyone. The President cannot and does not act alone. Again, when it just gets down to voting between 2 people for President, (or 3 or 4 depending on other parties) Every vote should hold equal weight. The President is everyone's president. It's not just a state thing. In this at least we are 'one' state electing a central leader. And the President really doesn't have the power to run roughshod over any particular state. Nor does he, historically, for that matter.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.