• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz on COL recall: 'Voter Suppression, Pure and Simple’

Grant said:
Voting becoming much harder for the intellectually challenged is not the same as voter suppression.
Click to expand...
No. You are absolutely wrong Grant.
voter suppression
Web definitions
Voter suppression is a strategy to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing people from exercising their right to vote. ...
Voter suppression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...
 Voter suppression is anything that makes it more difficult for any voter to cast their ballot ... especially when fewer people voting increases the odds that a candidate or a party will get an advantage from lower voter participation.
Voter suppression is exactly what happened in those Colorado districts.
 
Grant said:
Voting becoming much harder for the intellectually challenged is not the same as voter suppression.
Click to expand...
In the south before the Voting Rights Act of 1963 many areas allowed blacks to vote if they could recite parts of the constitution or the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. Blacks could still vote but it became much more difficult to vote That was voter suppression. No one disputes that.
People in rural areas may need to travel many many miles to find their polling place often taking time from work to make the trip. That is why mail in ballots were invented ...to encourage greater participation of the electorate.
This election was in an off year and enthusiasm was not great except among the single issue people who collected the signatures to bring it about.

Republicans are always afraid of greater participation because they tend to lose when more voters are encouraged to vote.
 
Grant said:
Maybe you should have offered them some of your advice and experience and it wouldn't have been such a rout.
Click to expand...

I live and work in Michigan.
 
Buck Ewer said:
No. You are absolutely wrong Grant.

Voter suppression is anything that makes it more difficult for any voter to cast their ballot ... especially when fewer people voting increases the odds that a candidate or a party will get an advantage from lower voter participation.
Voter suppression is exactly what happened in those Colorado districts.
Click to expand...

Who were these oppressed voters? Did anyone know in advance which way the votes might go in order to stymie that vote?

Is the a straight up Democrat versus Republican thing where the Democrats are against gun ownership and assume that all their members will vote the party line?

It seems odd that anyone would know which way a vote would go on this issue and then, when their supporters don't show up, call it 'oppression'. Maybe, in this case, the people just weren't interested in the party line.

Or it might be that Democrats just whine and claim foul whenever they don't get their way.
 
haymarket said:
Please explain how you can BE PREPARED for a sudden ruling that mail in votes are not going to be allowed with no precedent for such a thing.
Click to expand...

If the Democrats were poorly prepared then that would appear to be their fault.
 
Grant said:
If the Democrats were poorly prepared then that would appear to be their fault.
Click to expand...

How does one "prepare" for a barring of mail in ballots when 70% of voters had become used to them and that is their preferred method of voting?
 
haymarket said:
Please explain how you can BE PREPARED for a sudden ruling that mail in votes are not going to be allowed with no precedent for such a thing.
Click to expand...

A good political adviser should be prepared for any change in the circumstances, especially since what happened was perfectly legal..
 
haymarket said:
How does one "prepare" for a barring of mail in ballots when 70% of voters had become used to them and that is their preferred method of voting?
Click to expand...

If this ruling effected everyone equally and was fairly applied then it wouldn't seem to make much difference.
 
Grant said:
If this ruling effected everyone equally and was fairly applied then it wouldn't seem to make much difference.
Click to expand...

If 70% of the voters prefer and use mail in balloting and that is what they use in elections, to suddenly slam on the brakes and prevent them from using it is the penultimate example of the opposite of fairness and equal application. By its very design and purpose one cannot help but target that 70% with this ruling. To pretend othwewise is either naive or disingenuous.
 
haymarket said:
If 70% of the voters prefer and use mail in balloting and that is what they use in elections, to suddenly slam on the brakes and prevent them from using it is the penultimate example of the opposite of fairness and equal application. By its very design and purpose one cannot help but target that 70% with this ruling. To pretend othwewise is either naive or disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is those 70% who don't know how voting works, apart from mail in ballots, who were naive and disingenuous. Or maybe they just didn't feel strongly enough to bother.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps it is those 70% who don't know how voting works, apart from mail in ballots, who were naive and disingenuous. Or maybe they just didn't feel strongly enough to bother.
Click to expand...

Obviously they do know how voting works because they did it in the past.
 
j-mac said:
Hey, you're the one throwing it out there like I'm supposed to be impressed.. :lamo
Click to expand...

Impressed? I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
haymarket said:
Obviously they do know how voting works because they did it in the past.
Click to expand...

Apparently they weren't completely informed how the voting system works if they understood that the only way to vote was to mail it in. Obviously some better informed voters had no problem.
 
Grant said:
Apparently they weren't completely informed how the voting system works if they understood that the only way to vote was to mail it in. Obviously some better informed voters had no problem.
Click to expand...


You operate from the assumption that people were kowledgable about the sudden change and knew of it.
 
haymarket said:
You operate from the assumption that people were kowledgable about the sudden change and knew of it.
Click to expand...

There were obviously those who did vote so they were knowledgeable enough to cast their ballots.

Perhaps the Democrats are just bitter because they weren't as good as getting out the stupid people vote, which was done so well during the last presidential election.
 
Grant said:
There were obviously those who did vote so they were knowledgeable enough to cast their ballots.

Perhaps the Democrats are just bitter because they weren't as good as getting out the stupid people vote, which was done so well during the last presidential election.
Click to expand...

You really refuse to get it. The idea is not to outright create a illegal situation where you bar people from voting since that would be thrown out in a heartbeat. The idea is to create an environment where the poeple who you do not want to vote vote in lesser numbers than usual thereby giving you and advantage in winning. And that is what was done in Colorado with the barring of the mail in ballots when 70% of voters have used that method recently.

You may want to do a quick mirror check because you elitism is shown with that remark about "the stupid people".
 
haymarket said:
You really refuse to get it. The idea is not to outright create a illegal situation where you bar people from voting since that would be thrown out in a heartbeat. The idea is to create an environment where the poeple who you do not want to vote vote in lesser numbers than usual thereby giving you and advantage in winning. And that is what was done in Colorado with the barring of the mail in ballots when 70% of voters have used that method recently.

You may want to do a quick mirror check because you elitism is shown with that remark about "the stupid people".
Click to expand...
It might be a good idea to discontinue mail in ballots in every state considering it presents the perfect opportunity for fraud_

With the exception of course for the elderly, disabled, military personnel and anyone else who can prove reasonable circumstances will prevent them from accessing their assigned place of polling on election day_

I don't see how such a policy could effect either political party any more than the other since it is not based on political affiliation_
 
haymarket said:
You really refuse to get it. The idea is not to outright create a illegal situation where you bar people from voting since that would be thrown out in a heartbeat. The idea is to create an environment where the poeple who you do not want to vote vote in lesser numbers than usual thereby giving you and advantage in winning. And that is what was done in Colorado with the barring of the mail in ballots when 70% of voters have used that method recently.

You may want to do a quick mirror check because you elitism is shown with that remark about "the stupid people".
Click to expand...

Well then. Looks like the "blame" has to fall on the two that were recalled. They created the environment that led people to demand a recall vote. It's not an election that follows the calendar, it's one were enough people want them gone in a hurry. But even then the facts show nobody was "barred" from voting.
 
haymarket said:
You really refuse to get it. The idea is not to outright create a illegal situation where you bar people from voting since that would be thrown out in a heartbeat. The idea is to create an environment where the poeple who you do not want to vote vote in lesser numbers than usual thereby giving you and advantage in winning. And that is what was done in Colorado with the barring of the mail in ballots when 70% of voters have used that method recently.

You may want to do a quick mirror check because you elitism is shown with that remark about "the stupid people".
Click to expand...
It seems quite clear that nothing illegal was done and that many better informed voters did cast their ballots.

Didn't mean any offense by the 'stupid people' remark but that seemed the best way to describe them.
 
Empirica said:
It might be a good idea to discontinue mail in ballots in every state considering it presents the perfect opportunity for fraud_
Click to expand...

By all means do present your verifiable information that mail in ballots create election fraud.

And lets flush this silly idea about it presents opportunity for fraud. Every election procedure could be said to present opportunity for fraud if one is devious enough, clever enough and unprincipled enough to attempt it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom