Election Reform
Related: About this forumWhy Do Democrats Ignore Massive Voter Suppression?
Every day it gets harder for many of the poor, and minorities to vote. This is not a coincidence. The Republicans make it as hard as possible to vote, if your "group" supports Democrats over Republicans. This would include minorities, and the poor, and of course people convicted of a crime.
The Democrats don't seem to care one little bit. If any of them complain at all, it still seems unimportant.
I think the Democrats should make ending voter suppression the main plank of their platform. Going after the people trying to make it harder to vote with everything they got, instead of just sniveling occasionally.
But who am I.....
(Someone who knows every single Republican who can, votes every time, while most Americans don't even try)
Maybe if the poor and minorities understood how hard Democrats were working for their voting rights, 75% of them wouldn't stay home on election day.
But who am I.....
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)
elleng
(130,865 posts)and I attribute it to 'laziness.' Might be too general, it's a difficult challenge, and requires feet on the ground in every state, willing and able to work the issue. Seen what's happening in Kansas? Professor studying and proving machines etc distort results, and gov refuses to address the matter. and STILL in Ohio.
Very important, and very difficult.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Democratic voters are getting screwed left and right, and our party's leaders don't even seem to understand "the vote counts" decide everything.
If every person who wanted to vote voted easily, and their vote was counted correctly 100% of the time, our country would be different.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)arggh
LiberalArkie
(15,713 posts)If the county flips party then they have the voting machines programed to suit them.
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)as long as Republican governors gerrymander the districts. The only reason they have not done it for the presidency is because they can't mess with all 50 states.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)I forgot.
My bad.....
Yallow
(1,926 posts)The worst case of voter suppression I can think of.
Don won his election.
3,000 votes were "switched".
When he complained Karl Rove's "girl" prosecuted him.
Can't have no Democrat Governors in the South.
He is still in prison, and shows all Democrats what happens if they complain.
Sick.
Nitram
(22,791 posts)Have you been living in a cave for years?
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)excuse if possible. Otherwise I don't see "Jim Crow2.o" tactics changing for a long time.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)one can only hope the new leadership at DOJ will finally move on voter rights issues. Have to say,Holder sure as hell did not do anyone in the Brown Skinned Community any favors. Couple of small no brainers and that was it. This voting machines are a travesty,watched a fellow do a demonstration of hacking one of these things. Probably took him 2 minutes top to hack the sucker and right in front of us,rehacked it back to original settings. All from his cell phone. So much for poll watchers.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Such investigations take a lot of time. There is not enough time to complete an investigation before 2016.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)malicious activities by the GOP. These can be done on the State level as well as the National level. Noticed thru the last Election cycles,the Democratic Party Leadership just did not wont to piss off the Rethugs when it comes to Election Irregularities thinking well if we speak up then they will challenge our people as well. I say enough of this Patty Cake Crap. Call it like it is and let's clear the air.
Gothmog
(145,129 posts)Hillary Clinton gave a great speech in Houston back in May and made some really good proposals for protecting voting rights.
The Obama DOJ has been very active in protecting voting rights. Right now, we are waiting for the 5th Circuit to rule on a motion for en banc review of a ruling striking down the Texas voter id law. In addition, we are waiting for a three judge panel in the Western District of Texas to rule on the Texas redistricting case.
A great deal is being done to fight voter suppression
Yallow
(1,926 posts)That is my point.
Scream bloody murder every time they try something.
Ain't happening.
How about shutting down the government for equal voting rights for all?
Having voting machines doled out according to population, so there isn't 8 hour lines in inner cities like we see every election.
A LOT more can be done, and it won't be.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I've always found it all that liberal Dems have no operative definition for voting rights. Sure, easy access to polls is a must. I'd also make sure those disenfranchised can vote.
But if elections are the tool to measure the popular will then we need to do more to insure voters have real choices... that they can vote their conscience and get representation for those beliefs. And if the political process is designed to implement the popular will then representation must be democratic. We can't stop at 1 person, 1 vote... but that all votes weigh the same in terms of representation. This has never, to my knowledge, been something Dems stood up for outside of state elections. On the federal level a mere 18% of the US population gets 52% of the seats in the Senate... and in our system the Senate just doesn't have a veto on the House... it has special powers that the House has no veto over... such as nominations and treaties.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)On purpose.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The new system was designed in a way that dealt with two main needs of the era... dealing with a complete failure of the Articles and states wanting to surrender the least amount of sovereignty possible. The new system met those needs of the time. But the lesson here is the Framers didn't shy from facing these problems. The Articles were to be a "perpetual union" that could not be amended without unanimous consent. It was a political straitjacket.
Article XIII. Every State shall abide by the determination of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html#Article13
The Article went into effect in 1781 and yet the Framers were conspiring to replace it as early as 1787. They realized it could not be reformed from within the system as they were directed to do... so they chose to overthrow it and create a stronger, more flexible system.
If we see problems with the their system... why should we shy from wanting to change it? For example Madison built class warfare into the Constitution... wanting the Senate to essentially be our House of Lords
MADISON: The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa, or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe; when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of the landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered.
source: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/const/yates.htm
Would we, today, create a system based on class warfare giving elites the power to thwart the People? Or would we find democratic ways to protect legitimate rights such as a constitutional protection to protect wealth?
Some will say that we have the amendment process. But the bar was deliberately created to be too high. Madison believed that this was necessary so people would venerate the Constitution. In Federalist 49 he wrote
In the next place, it may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would, in a great measure, deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.
Because the amendment process is state based we're left with the absurdity that states with a mere 40% of the US population can pass any amendment, yet states with as little as 4% can block any amendment. Would we create an amendment system today that was state based and not population based? Would we, today, create a system where an EC could overturn the popular vote for president?
We need to have some clear democratic principles... and one should be that of civic equality: that all votes weigh the same in terms of representation. This is the standard we've imposed on the states. But we refuse to consider it on the federal level.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)One only needs to look at what happened when we had the House, a 60-seat majority in the Senate, and the White House: A massive fear among the party establishment that they were now expected to actually do something.
Fortunately, the party ran in terror of its 2009-2010 accomplishments in the 2010 election, and we got back to the nice, safe gridlock were Republicans advance their causes and Democrats complain about obstruction. Now the party doesn't have to actually do anything.
SO much safer when you can't do the "wrong" thing and threaten the big donations.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)Thinks... Why?... 
toddwv
(2,830 posts)No matter how the right-wing likes to paint the "lame-stream media" as "liberal, the US media is controlled by a handful of corporations, and those corporations are rarely "liberal" in nature or action.
Yallow
(1,926 posts)The billionaire run media would have to report it.
toddwv
(2,830 posts)We'd hear about how it was the left's fault just like we hear that when the right gleefully shuts down the government.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)(I was going to post this, but I found your thread).
How Democrats Suppress The Vote
Off-year elections have much lower turnout, and Democrats prefer it that way
By EITAN HERSH
In the ongoing fight between Democrats and Republicans over election procedures like voter ID and early voting, the Democrats are supposedly the champions of higher turnout and reducing barriers to participation. But when it comes to scheduling off-cycle elections1 like those taking place today, the Democratic Party is the champion of voter suppression.
Indeed, few people will vote today. Many elections are taking place, but almost all are for local offices. School boards, for example, are up for election in Houston; Fairfax County, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina and in hundreds of other communities that oversee the education of millions of schoolchildren. But only a small number of highly engaged voters will participate in the elections for these offices.
Scheduling elections at odd times appears to be a deliberate strategy aimed at keeping turnout low, which gives more influence to groups like teachers unions that have a direct stake in the election’s outcome. But before getting into the details of off-cycle elections, consider the parties’ basic positions on issues of voter participation. As election law expert Rick Hasen has noted, there is a philosophical divide between the parties. Supposedly, for Republicans, small barriers to participation can help the functioning of a democracy. For instance, in recent years, Republicans have been pushing a requirement that voters present identification when they show up to cast a ballot. They argue that voter ID laws can prevent fraud and foster confidence in the electoral system. But they also argue that if an ID requirement deters people who aren’t particularly well-informed or invested in the political process, this might be a net benefit for the electoral system.
The Democratic philosophy is different. For Democrats, universal participation is a value: All voices ought to be represented in the electoral sphere, so the government should not put up any unnecessary barriers to participation.
Debates over issues like voter ID are politically explosive because each side suspects the other of having a strategic motive, not a philosophical one, for its position. Maybe Republicans want lower turnout not because it yields an informed electorate, but because it favors their side. Maybe Democrats promote higher turnout not because of an ideological commitment to civic engagement, but because higher turnout helps elect Democrats (though there is substantial disagreement on whether that is true).
More: FiveThirtyEight
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The US has perhaps the worst voter turnout in the modern industrial world. In off year elections about 35% of the voting age population (VAP) votes and about 50-55% in presidential years. This isn't because of GOP voter suppression but because unlike modern democracies, our electoral and political systems are antidemocratic. As a progressive I can vote forever and never get representation for my beliefs as I could in a true multiparty parliamentary system. Our system punishes some voters by throwing elections to a plurality candidate... through the so-called spoiler effect. In presidential elections someone like Bush REJECTED by the People can be installed as President. The federal government is antidemocratic by design... and it's virtually impossible to amend the Constitution. Depending on how the states vote... an amendment can be passed by states with a mere 40% of the population or stopped by states with as little as 4%. I could go on but the point is if Dems really wanted more to vote, they'd fix the system and make elections and the political process relevant to all citizens. But they don't. And because of it we'll continue to have our 35-55% VAP turnout while other nations are in the 80% range.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)eniwetok
(1,629 posts)The VRA never guaranteed civic equality in the vote... at least not on the federal level. On the federal level voter inequality is built into the system... and this inequality is never protested.
At some point voting rights activists should take the time to define democracy and/or democratic principles.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)There is no denying the wait times would have been significantly reduced.
Alison Hartson
(39 posts)SleeplessinSeattle55
(1 post)Given that the red states are all hell bent on restricting voter registration by poor and minority voters, I am looking for a trustworthy group that works to help those voters get the documentation they need in order to vote. Is there such a group out there? How do I find it? I would like to contribute and spread awareness of such a group to people who would like to join me.
SaveTheMackerel
(37 posts)Both parties commit fraud if they can, but I think mostly the Republicans try to cut any groups out.
If you want to achieve change in an area, you need work with whichever party is in the minority.
Democrats need to compromise a bit about ID laws. Independent voters exist for a reason, to break ties. If the Reps ask for ID and the Dems say people don't have $25, the Dems should propose that drivers licenses be given for free once during the 3 months prior to an election. Independent voters would break the tie and go for that. If you just say no ID is needed, the independent voters will side with the republicans.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I fail to find the moral equivalence between the two parties when it comes to fraud. The Dem may have bad apples but the GOP, perhaps since the Powell Memo, has been engaged in voter suppression as a matter of strategy. And this makes sense given the distrust of elites about democracy. They want to leverage their wealth to negate the popular will... and turn the electoral and political processes into just another commodity. All's fair in this game.
V 4 C C i IN E
(5 posts)I agree, but to a degree. Some do, and some do not, but Bernie Sanders has touched on fixing this. Besides that, the voter turnout is amazing for Bernie Sanders and its getting bigger. Regardless of what the main stream media is and has been trying to do.
See main stream media has something to do with voter turnout. Their goal is to push for the candidate that they want to win, so in this case such as CNN (using one for example) has done their best to make it "look like" Bernie is always doing bad. Bernie could win 4 of 4 states one night, and they will still come out and say Hillarys doing great, what they are trying to do is bring moral down for the opposition candidate so people do not go vote.
Then another BIG example is this.... SUPER DELEGATES!!! many people do not understand how super delegates work, so when FOX and CNN and all of these other main stream media channels show the delegates, what they do is ADD all the super delegates that is "temporarily" on Hillarys side to her total. Super delegates can change at any given second, not only that, but super delegates have NEVER been a difference in the final outcome. (Look it up).
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)Hillary got more votes in the 2008 primaries... though maybe this is a fluke given how Obama and Edwards took their names off the Mich ballot in protest of their moving up their primary.
Either way it doesn't matter if the super delegates EVER threw a nomination. The concept is inherently antidemocratic... giving party elites a chance to overthrow the popular vote in close elections in the same way that the Electoral College was intended to give elites a chance to veto the popular vote and Senate was designed to give elites a veto over the House. The federal system was largely built on a distrust of the People and gave elites a chance to thwart the popular will in the presidency, in Congress and the amendment process.
I totally agree with your post. Voter suppression seems like an issue that has been ignored. I've been researching this issue lately myself. I could not vote in the primaries because I failed to change my party affiliation within 29 days of election day. Totally arbitrary!
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)I've worked with the register of voters in my town and there's quite a bit of work that goes into preparing voter lists for the precincts. For instance when the state census is being done the office is swamped with updated info of everyone in town. Those who are voters have to be cross checked with a state data base to make sure they're not registered in more than one town, that their address is verified, and the right info goes out to be printed for the voting lists. Closed primaries only complicate this. Is 29 days too long? Here in MA I believe it was 20 days. So while a long waiting time may be part of some voter suppression scheme... it might also be legitimate.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I dont have a problem with deadlines. Gives the state time to verify registrations.
eniwetok
(1,629 posts)In the 60's landmark voters rights cases in the south made illegal all vote weighting/dilution schemes which gave some citizens in county X a bigger vote than citizens in county Y. From Reynolds v Sims
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/377/533.html
It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable.
Our entire federal system is based on such vote weighting/dilution schemes. Any citizen living in WY has a 72x bigger influence in the Senate than any citizen in CA. No, this doesn't even out in the House since any given citizen gets only one House member... not the entire state delegation. Any citizen in WY has a 3.5x bigger presidential vote than any citizen in CA. Where does this civic inequality lead? In determining the outcome of election 2000... the vote of any citizen in Bush's FL lead weighed as much as 1000 citizens in Gore's national lead.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)
Any six other people (or four if we do just weekdays) want to revive ER Daily News, I'm in for a day.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)
PATRICK
(12,228 posts)Many retail workers in NY had their voting rights suppressed. Two days before the election, taking advantage of the archaic 12 noon sort polling day upstate they suddenly rescheduled employees for nine hour shifts- starting at noon. This effected with marked concentration Sanders voters. Trump supporters had no such difficulty.
How is this possible? In case you are unfamiliar with that sort of workplace, FOX TV is present in the break rooms- and so is management. People get pretty vociferous about their beliefs. How is this a fact? Thanks to social media when someone gets screwed like this they can compare notes over a wide swath very quickly. As for fighting this do you have to be reminded of the uneasy status of such workers? It can be proven easily should someone want to sue the retail giants like Walmart on their behalf by work records and affiliations. Future intimidation of course is strengthened like the good old days of the nineteenth century Gilded Age. Their shared estimate is that it effects many thousands of young workers. Up here it is pretty much universally anti-Hillary.
In a lawsuit you might think this would be easy, but hey this is America. We pay good tax dollars to Walmart so they don't have to overpay their minions and we expect them to control their people for us. The money involved would make even the largest slap on the wrist or settlement award would pale according to the the influence these businesses receive everyday from their preening tools in Congress.
clarkkentvotes
(23 posts)many people do need to participate more and not register the last week of the season etc -
that said - people are being taken off the polls - purged - and people who are non violent drug offenders should not have the right to vote taken from them - nor anyone who has already done the time -
Asa Gordon
(16 posts)TAXPAYER_VOTERID
A Serious (cost effective) all American bi-partisan conservative/liberal Voter ID Solution:
Universal and Automatic Voter Identification and Registration for all US "citizens" of a state that files a federal tax return. The state in which a federal tax return is filed is required to mail the citizen taxpayer a registration and voter ID card or be subject to the malapportionment penalty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The United States of America is founded on the principle of "No taxation without Representation."
Accordingly, any document used by the Federal or State Government for taxation assessment constitutes sufficient taxpayer identification to register and vote for that Government.
Taxpayer Voter ID Act would allow more citizens to vote
July 22, 2014_GREEN PAGES Vol.18,No. 1-Summer 2014
http://greenpagesnews.org/2014/07/22/taxpayer-voter-id-act-would-allow-more-citizens-to-vote/
Taxpayer Voter ID Act pursuant to Amend. XIVSec.2 would facilitate confirm citizens voting.
If the Document is good enough to take my money it's good enough to accept my vote ( If it isn't, then refund all my taxes paid). No photo required to take my money, no photo required to take my vote.
However, conservatives are going to object, because this is a serious universal voter ID policy that expands rather then restricts all citizens voting, because the number of voters who are negatively impacted by Voter ID laws and also don't file federal income tax forms is insignificant. Many progressives will resist, especially lawyers because it will put many liberals that have a professional state in endless litigation over fungible repeated victories pursuant to the Voting Rights Act, with endless voter registration drives out of business.
i.e. There is a bi-partisan consensus of professional liberals and conservatives in suppressing meaningful even obvious solutions outside the box that may undermine their authoritative status and undermine the two party monopoly.
