• 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!

Voter Suppression--Why Do GOP State Governments Pass Laws That Make Voting More Difficult...

LincolnRossiter

LincolnRossiter

DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2018
Messages
1,227
Reaction score
803
Location
NOVA/DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
...for casual voters.

This is a shameless spinoff from the breaking news thread concerning Georgia's purge of an estimated 107,000 voters under its relatively new "use it or lose it" law, which stipulates that anyone who hasn't voted or made contact with election officials within the last three years be automatically removed from active voter rolls and forced to re-register before voting again. I'm bringing up a second thread because I posted something buried within the thread that I'd like to give a little more visibility to spur some (hopefully) honest discussion. It's below:


I want to start by stating state an apparently little known fact and follow it up with a few questions.

Fact: The United States, billed as the world's oldest democracy (well democratic-republic) has one of the lowest voter participation rates of any developed nation in the world.

So...

1. Why do many conservatives feel there's some justification for further complicating a process that a majority of eligible voters obviously already don't bother to participate in.

2. Why do so many conservatives believe the false narrative that there is widespread voter fraud in this country when there is absolutely nothing to support the supposition? When did this narrative take hold, and why do you believe it (if you do)?

3. We're on the honor system here. Is anyone here willing to admit that deep down many conservatives simply believe that voting rights should be more restricted, or at the very least consider it a good thing when fewer people--especially fewer certain kinds of people--vote. And before you bristle, I can link you to another political board where I used to post that's overwhelmingly conservative where sentiments like that are the rule, not the exception. I've routinely read proposals to (1) restrict the vote to people with a certain minimum federal income tax liability, (2) restrict the vote to those who haven't received any federal aid in the last "x" number of years, (3) restrict the vote to property owners (business or residential), (4) raise the voting age to 25, and/or (5) require that voters pass a basic civics test.

If you run in conservative circles, as I have most of my adult life, I'm sure you've heard the same. Curious if anyone supports any of these ideas. I'm even more curious if anyone's willing to admit that you realize these "use or lose" voter roll purges, address verifications, some ID laws, and various other hoops are designed to do nothing more than throw up enough roadblocks to ensure that people within demos that are less inclined to vote will be more likely to say "screw it" and stay home. Because I believe it's as obvious to conservatives and moderates as it is to liberals.
 
Last edited:
Because they know the more people that vote, the less likely they can win on their racism, hypocrisy and fear mongering. They pander to the hateful idiots, who are the minority. They win by suppressing votes and gerrymandering so they can gain more seats with less overall votes. It's pretty obvious.

Good message to everybody, if voting didn't matter, republicans wouldn't be working so hard to reduce the number of people voting. The most ridiuclous thing is they spread around bull**** that dems are trying to cheat, when its them who has been cheating for a long time now, and they don't even hide it
 
LincolnRossiter said:
... require that voters pass a basic civics test ...
Click to expand...

If there were ever a proposal (there won't be) to restrict voting to those with at least 4-year bachelors degree, I'd seriously consider voting for it... and I don't consider myself to be a conservative on most issues...
 
I feel like it's a last ditch effort anyway. The younger generations all trend liberal and they're just leaning more and more left with every headline in the current political climate. As the younger generations reach voting age, the conservative cause is going to become more and more desperate. Eventually, all the voter suppression republicans can muster won't be enough to turn the blue tide. Embracing this low-key racist populism was a foolish strategic move by the Republicans. It won them a battle at the cost of the war. That said, they did turn the Supreme Court red. Maybe it was a calculated sacrifice in order to give them some meager bit of influence in a firmly blue post-Trump world.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
...for casual voters.

This is a shameless spinoff from the breaking news thread concerning Georgia's purge of an estimated 107,000 voters under its relatively new "use it or lose it" law, which stipulates that anyone who hasn't voted or made contact with election officials within the last three years be automatically removed from active voter rolls and forced to re-register before voting again. I'm bringing up a second thread because I posted something buried within the thread that I'd like to give a little more visibility to spur some (hopefully) honest discussion. It's below:


I want to start by stating state an apparently little known fact and follow it up with a few questions.

Fact: The United States, billed as the world's oldest democracy (well democratic-republic) has one of the lowest voter participation rates of any developed nation in the world.

So...

1. Why do many conservatives feel there's some justification for further complicating a process that a majority of eligible voters obviously already don't bother to participate in.

2. Why do so many conservatives believe the false narrative that there is widespread voter fraud in this country when there is absolutely nothing to support the supposition? When did this narrative take hold, and why do you believe it (if you do)?

3. We're on the honor system here. Is anyone here willing to admit that deep down many conservatives simply believe that voting rights should be more restricted, or at the very least consider it a good thing when fewer people--especially fewer certain kinds of people--vote. And before you bristle, I can link you to another political board where I used to post that's overwhelmingly conservative where sentiments like that are the rule, not the exception. I've routinely read proposals to (1) restrict the vote to people with a certain minimum federal income tax liability, (2) restrict the vote to those who haven't received any federal aid in the last "x" number of years, (3) restrict the vote to property owners (business or residential), (4) raise the voting age to 25, and/or (5) require that voters pass a basic civics test.

If you run in conservative circles, as I have most of my adult life, I'm sure you've heard the same. Curious if anyone supports any of these ideas. I'm even more curious if anyone's willing to admit that you realize these "use or lose" voter roll purges, address verifications, some ID laws, and various other hoops are designed to do nothing more than throw up enough roadblocks to ensure that people within demos that are less inclined to vote will be more likely to say "screw it" and stay home. Because I believe it's as obvious to conservatives and moderates as it is to liberals.
Click to expand...
The leaders do it because they can limit the votes of their opponents by doing so, and thus win when they should not.
In short, they are cheating voters out of their voice, and lying by claiming it is right and just to do so.

Their supporters do so because they have been lied to for decades about what the real problems are, and how their opponents are lying when they claim those are not issues.
In short, they are misled but well-meaning...or not well-meaning.
 
The Mark said:
The leaders do it because they can limit the votes of their opponents by doing so.

Their supporters do so because they have been lied to for decades about what the real problems are, and how their opponents are lying when they claim those are not issues.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I guess it's implicit in my OP that I get "why" the leaders do it--because it's electorally advantageous. I guess my question is why so many people actually feel that it's justified when if you look at my basic premise--our voter participation sucks--it's clear we don't have some issue with runaway fraudulent voting.

I suppose if I had to pose a logical riddle to the conservatives who support these measures it would go like this.

If democratic constituencies numerically exceed republican ones (they do) and democrats routinely engage in widescale voter fraud to win elections (the justification for all of these laws), then why is the GOP always winning elections?
 
Voter Suppression--Why Do GOP State Governments Pass Laws That Make Voting More Difficult...
Click to expand...

Every October, we get the same stupid question. :roll:

Perhaps, instead of spamming the board with the same old crap, try looking for answers on-line?

Just a thought.
 
DamnYankee said:
Every October, we get the same stupid question. :roll:

Perhaps, instead of spamming the board with the same old crap, try looking for answers on-line?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I think the point is to get your particular response as a conservative who posts here.
 
lwf said:
I think the point is to get your particular response as a conservative who posts here.
Click to expand...

No, it's the same old ****. Leftists just want to whinge.
 
DamnYankee said:
Every October, we get the same stupid question. :roll:

Perhaps, instead of spamming the board with the same old crap, try looking for answers on-line?

Just a thought.
Click to expand...
I'm asking for answers online, genius. Do you have any? If your intellectual and moral cowardice is too crippling for you to speak your mind on an anonymous message board, consider yourself dismissed.
 
DamnYankee said:
No, it's the same old ****. Leftists just want to whinge.
Click to expand...

If you don't want to respond to the OP, then why post at all? Aren't you just being antagonistic?
 
lwf said:
If you don't want to respond to the OP, then why post at all? Aren't you just being antagonistic?
Click to expand...

I did respond. And my advice was go do your own research instead of clogging the forum with the same old crap. I thought I was clear on that.

What is better, researching to find answers. Or, a bunch of like minded nincompoops all giving the same stupid answer?

You decide.
 
Slavister said:
If there were ever a proposal (there won't be) to restrict voting to those with at least 4-year bachelors degree, I'd seriously consider voting for it... and I don't consider myself to be a conservative on most issues...
Click to expand...
I've considered educational and knowledge requirements. There's only one problem (well not only one, but it's the biggest); who gets to set the standard for what constitutes the appropriate level of knowledge or aptitude to vote? I double majored in U.S. History and American Institutions at Cornell (just a bachelors) and I could fashion a "civics" test that maybe 1 in 10 people could pass--maybe. What if someone decided that the test should be designed by the government and history department chairs at the Ivies? Or what if the requirement for a bachelors excluded certain schools or degrees (like online degrees or HUMEC majors)? So ultimately you just have to throw the lot out and conclude that our government needs to be representative of the idiots in the country, too. For all the ills democracy and representative democracy bring, they're still our least bad option. And we shouldn't be selectively cleaving off wide swaths of the polity.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
I've considered educational and knowledge requirements. There's only one problem (well not only one, but it's the biggest); who gets to set the standard for what constitutes the appropriate level of knowledge or aptitude to vote? I double majored in U.S. History and American Institutions at Cornell (just a bachelors) and I could fashion a "civics" test that maybe 1 in 10 people could pass--maybe. What if someone decided that the test should be designed by the government and history department chairs at the Ivies? Or what if the requirement for a bachelors excluded certain schools or degrees (like online degrees or HUMEC majors)? So ultimately you just have to throw the lot out and conclude that our government needs to be representative of the idiots in the country, too. For all the ills democracy and representative democracy bring, they're still our least bad option. And we shouldn't be selectively cleaving off wide swaths of the polity.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should eliminate 90% of voters, but setting some easy-to-check standard would be good IMO. I am not thinking a test that people have to pass. Rather any Bachelor's degree suffices. Just wanting some proof of critical thinking over nothing.
 
DamnYankee said:
I did respond. And my advice was go do your own research instead of clogging the forum with the same old crap. I thought I was clear on that.

What is better, researching to find answers. Or, a bunch of like minded nincompoops all giving the same stupid answer?

You decide.
Click to expand...
You don't seem like-minded, sparky. Why don't you give me a different, smart answer? As someone with a background in history and government, I don't need really need a primer on voter suppression efforts or their justifications throughout U.S. history. I was asking a personal question that doesn't lend itself to "research." Why do so many conservative voters--especially pissed, trumpy ones like you--constantly defend these ham-fisted measures? More directly I'm asking that instead of defending them as good policy designed to address a lingering problem, why don't you just admit that you'd like to see fewer people voting?
 
Slavister said:
I don't think we should eliminate 90% of voters, but setting some easy-to-check standard would be good IMO. I am not thinking a test that people have to pass. Rather any Bachelor's degree suffices. Just wanting some proof of critical thinking over nothing.
Click to expand...
I think it's an interesting proposal. Just for fun I have to ask if you'd have entertained an exemption for Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Paul Allen and like 80% of millionaire celebrities.
 
DamnYankee said:
What is better, researching to find answers. Or, a bunch of like minded nincompoops all giving the same stupid answer?

You decide.
Click to expand...

Consider it a poll then. He wants the opinions of conservatives who post on this site regarding voter suppression. How do you "research" that without asking conservatives who post here? If you don't want to give your opinion, you can quite easily skip this thread. If you choose to post rude comments without sharing your opinion, isn't it rational to assume that you are in some way uncomfortable with the op? If you weren't, you would have just skipped it.
 
Voter Suppression--Why Do GOP State Governments Pass Laws That Make Voting More Difficult...

Because they can't win elections fairly and honestly. They require voter suppression tactics and grossly gerrymandered state districts.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
I think it's an interesting proposal. Just for fun I have to ask if you'd have entertained an exemption for Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Paul Allen and like 80% of millionaire celebrities.
Click to expand...

Good question. :) I would have, but I don't know in what form such exceptions would take place... Maybe a test would be applicable for people w/o Bachelor's degree?

On the other hand, I don't see a big issue to have no exceptions either; especially if it's too complex or controversial. After all, even today, we rather arbitrarily set the age when someone is allowed to vote and don't make exceptions for the much more mature teens before they hit their age.
 
Slavister said:
I don't think we should eliminate 90% of voters, but setting some easy-to-check standard would be good IMO. I am not thinking a test that people have to pass. Rather any Bachelor's degree suffices. Just wanting some proof of critical thinking over nothing.
Click to expand...

Imagine the corruption opportunities? Elections can't be completely up-and-up with the simple, every-adult-citizen model, imagine building someone's judgement call into it? Everything that can be manipulated, is. Standard of critical thinking? In the over-heated, hyper-partisan atmosphere out there now? You'd search the world before you found someone unbiased enough to make that call.
 
Grand Mal said:
imagine building someone's judgement call into it?
Click to expand...

what judgement call?

What extra corruption opportunities arise from limiting voting to those with any Bachelor degrees?
 
LincolnRossiter said:
1. Why do many conservatives feel there's some justification for further complicating a process that a majority of eligible voters obviously already don't bother to participate in.
Click to expand...

"North Carolina's stated reason for shutting down Sunday voting was that counties with heavy Sunday voting were disproportionately African-American, and that African-Americans tended to be Democrats."

Okay? They don't even try to hide it anymore.
"We have to shut down voting because black Democrats might vote."

Dpg8cRlWkAAON5J.jpg


Do I have to use the N-word to get it across to people?
"We here in Nawth Carah-lanah don't like it none too much if our nigras try to vote.
We try to discourage that sort of thang roun heah."


But they get upset and accuse us on the liberal side of fomenting violence and supporting incivility if we so much as point this **** out. In fact, at this point, 90% of the Republican platform consists of round the clock repetition of claims that the Left are prone to violence, but meanwhile we're also ******s, snowflakes and scared little momma's boys, which summons a bizarre Schroedinger-like effect.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
You don't seem like-minded, sparky. Why don't you give me a different, smart answer? As someone with a background in history and government, I don't need really need a primer on voter suppression efforts or their justifications throughout U.S. history. I was asking a personal question that doesn't lend itself to "research." Why do so many conservative voters--especially pissed, trumpy ones like you--constantly defend these ham-fisted measures? More directly I'm asking that instead of defending them as good policy designed to address a lingering problem, why don't you just admit that you'd like to see fewer people voting?
Click to expand...

At least Paul Weyrich was honest.

 
Slavister said:
I don't think we should eliminate 90% of voters, but setting some easy-to-check standard would be good IMO. I am not thinking a test that people have to pass. Rather any Bachelor's degree suffices. Just wanting some proof of critical thinking over nothing.
Click to expand...

The country would undoubtedly be a better place if such standards could be implemented fairly without corruption or bias. I would always vote against those standards however, simply because I don't believe that they could ever be implemented fairly without corruption or bias. In fact, I believe they would be used by the dishonest to consolidate power.

One could make a similar argument for eugenics. The fact that it theoretically could be used to the benefit of humanity doesn't change my belief that it would inevitably be corrupted by those seeking power. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Slavister said:
what judgement call?

What extra corruption opportunities arise from limiting voting to those with any Bachelor degrees?
Click to expand...

Oh, must have misread.
Whole different corruption opportunities might open up if sufferage depended on a degree. Hell, Trump University might get accredited. A Brit friend of mine got his undergraduate degree at Magdalen College. He said more degrees were sold for more different currencies at Oxford then there were lawyers in London.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom