• 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!

What is wrong with the Dems new voting rights bill?

Voting Rights Bill Passes House on Pure Party-Line Vote
I have head McConnell say it is the Dems trying to steal elections, but I really do not see what is wrong with the bill. It makes the right to vote the law of the land by registering all legal voters. It makes voting easier for everyone by early voting and on site registering, something my state already has. It lets us know who is donating huge sums of money to both parties. It outlaws gerrymandering by both parties and gets the states back to one man one vote concept that everyone should agree with. So exactly how does it hurt your party and help the other? It would seem that the party with the best candidate and the best platform would in elections, not who can eliminate the most voters from the other party or set up districts to make sure your party wins even when they lose, something that both parties have done in the past with gerrymandering. So what is wrong with the bill?

From Republicans' perspective, what's wrong with it is that it makes it harder for them to win elections. Gerrymandering and working to keep Republican turnout high and Democratic turnout low are tactics that have been very successful for Republicans in past elections. So of course they want to keep using them. This bill makes that more difficult.
 
Voting Rights Bill Passes House on Pure Party-Line Vote
I have head McConnell say it is the Dems trying to steal elections, but I really do not see what is wrong with the bill. It makes the right to vote the law of the land by registering all legal voters. It makes voting easier for everyone by early voting and on site registering, something my state already has. It lets us know who is donating huge sums of money to both parties. It outlaws gerrymandering by both parties and gets the states back to one man one vote concept that everyone should agree with. So exactly how does it hurt your party and help the other? It would seem that the party with the best candidate and the best platform would in elections, not who can eliminate the most voters from the other party or set up districts to make sure your party wins even when they lose, something that both parties have done in the past with gerrymandering. So what is wrong with the bill?

I don't have a problem registering all legal voters, but I don't think it would help turnout one bit. I think we have bent over backwards to make voting easier with less folks turning out to actually vote. Going by percentages that is. We have early voting in most states, we have mail in ballots in a couple, some have experimented with on-line voting. Nothing helps turnout, if an individual doesn't want to vote, regardless of what you do outside of mandatory voting, he isn't going to vote.

Look at this way, when this nation had voting on only one day, no early voting or mail in ballots, voter turnout as a percentage was much higher than today without any other incentive than it was one's civic duty to vote. Turnout when one had to go to the polls on election day and election day only, 1952 63.3%, 1956 60.6%, 1960 63.1%, 1964 61.9%, 1968 60.8%. Since 1968 voter turnout has averaged in the lower 50's, with a low of 49.1% 1996 to a high of 56.8 in 2008.

Has all the changes we made to include early voting among with other experiments made a difference. No. Those who vote early are dedicated voters. They take the time to go down to their polling place to vote early or fill in their mail in ballot which they would have done the same if there was only one day instead of 3 weeks up to 6 weeks depending on the state. Those who weren't going to vote stay home regardless if voting is just one day, 3 weeks or 6 weeks.

As my son who is 50 and has never in his life voted says. Why vote? Washington is going to do what Washington wants to do regardless of what the people want or wish. It doesn't matter. Just leave me alone.

He's a big Pittsburgh Steeler fan. He cares more about whether the Steelers win or lose than who's president or as mundane a thing as to who controls congress.

Not all Americans are political junkies like us here on this site.
 
Last edited:
The Bill of rights is a part of the Constitution. They were added as the first ten Amendments to the constitution. They do not hold all of the rights granted by our constitution, many are covered in the body of the constitution. You sound like you know nothing about our constitution with the "its not in the bill of rights crap". We call them the bill of rights, but the founding fathers just added them as the first ten amendments.

They didn't add them. Those are the first ten amendments. Those are the only amemdments that spell out our enumerated rights.
 
Do you know what The Bill of Rights is?

Yes....its the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They reside IN the Constitution. They are not a separate document that then points you to the Constitution for the remaining amendments. Im not sure what you are trying to get at.

The 15th Amendment is no less valid or enumerated than any of the first 10. To try to argue otherwise is plain ****ing dumb.
 
it's bad for republicans, they are fully in the pockets of the rich, even foreign funders. They want to keep their money train, so no **** they are fighting this. They work for their donors, and their donors early.

they don't want fair elections, because they would lose pandering to the lowest of the low like they do now. They don't have any ideas or plans, just distract their idiot base while the rich rob the country blind

What McConnel is doing is usual projection. republicans have been stealing elections for a while now. Gerrymandering, changing rules when dems get power so they don't have power, suppressing voters, disenfranchising them with mudslinging campaign, etc. There success is based on them rigging the system so they can have the fewest numbe rof supporters but still win elections
 
Yes....its the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. They reside IN the Constitution. They are not a separate document that then points you to the Constitution for the remaining amendments. Im not sure what you are trying to get at.

The 15th Amendment is no less valid or enumerated than any of the first 10. To try to argue otherwise is plain ****ing dumb.

They are the enumerated rights. No other amendments are enumerated rights.
 
They are the enumerated rights. No other amendments are enumerated rights.

So it is your contention that the only enumerated rights we have are the ones the founders thought of in the first 10?

You gotta be kidding me.

Enumerated doesnt mean what you apparently think it does. As was shown to you earlier, the word simply means to determine how many of something there are. That means every time an amendment recognized another right of the people, it became enumerated and given a number.

The right to vote is the 15th enumerated right in the Constitution. It is just as valid as the 4th or the 8th.

The founders werent infallible geniuses.....they didnt think of everything, and even gave us the mechanism to take care of those things they didnt think of.
 
Biggest problems with bill is it allows local communities to allow non citizens to exercise the right of a citizen to vote. If they are letting them vote that is wrong. What exactly is suppresive about asking voters to register and for them to show I.D. when they exercise the right of a citizen to vote?
 
I don't have a problem registering all legal voters, but I don't think it would help turnout one bit. I think we have bent over backwards to make voting easier with less folks turning out to actually vote. Going by percentages that is. We have early voting in most states, we have mail in ballots in a couple, some have experimented with on-line voting. Nothing helps turnout, if an individual doesn't want to vote, regardless of what you do outside of mandatory voting, he isn't going to vote.

Look at this way, when this nation had voting on only one day, no early voting or mail in ballots, voter turnout as a percentage was much higher than today without any other incentive than it was one's civic duty to vote. Turnout when one had to go to the polls on election day and election day only, 1952 63.3%, 1956 60.6%, 1960 63.1%, 1964 61.9%, 1968 60.8%. Since 1968 voter turnout has averaged in the lower 50's, with a low of 49.1% 1996 to a high of 56.8 in 2008.

Has all the changes we made to include early voting among with other experiments made a difference. No. Those who vote early are dedicated voters. They take the time to go down to their polling place to vote early or fill in their mail in ballot which they would have done the same if there was only one day instead of 3 weeks up to 6 weeks depending on the state. Those who weren't going to vote stay home regardless if voting is just one day, 3 weeks or 6 weeks.

As my son who is 50 and has never in his life voted says. Why vote? Washington is going to do what Washington wants to do regardless of what the people want or wish. It doesn't matter. Just leave me alone.

He's a big Pittsburgh Steeler fan. He cares more about whether the Steelers win or lose than who's president or as mundane a thing as to who controls congress.

Not all Americans are political junkies like us here on this site.

I'm in favor of voter registration and providing I.D. when you do vote. If not how do you know who is voting and how many times they vote. Why would anyone see this as a problem. It's liberal political hype to claim that is voter supression.
American voter turnout is down because younger people do not vote, have less interest, all ages seem to be disinchanted with what our Congress does,(nothing mostly) and agrees with you son, "why vote, they do what they do".
Time for Term Limits.
 
it's bad for republicans, they are fully in the pockets of the rich, even foreign funders. They want to keep their money train, so no **** they are fighting this. They work for their donors, and their donors early.

they don't want fair elections, because they would lose pandering to the lowest of the low like they do now. They don't have any ideas or plans, just distract their idiot base while the rich rob the country blind

What McConnel is doing is usual projection. republicans have been stealing elections for a while now. Gerrymandering, changing rules when dems get power so they don't have power, suppressing voters, disenfranchising them with mudslinging campaign, etc. There success is based on them rigging the system so they can have the fewest numbe rof supporters but still win elections

YOu don't really think the republicans are more in the pockets of the rich than democrats do you? I'd say it's probably close to even. I don know both sides get about 70% of donations from individuals and the rest comes from big money donors, the really rich and the cooperation owners and CEO's.

Top Individual Contributors: All Federal Contributions | OpenSecrets
Midterm big spenders: the top 20 political donors this election | US news | The Guardian
 
Biggest problems with bill is it allows local communities to allow non citizens to exercise the right of a citizen to vote. If they are letting them vote that is wrong. What exactly is suppresive about asking voters to register and for them to show I.D. when they exercise the right of a citizen to vote?

No it doesn't ... It's against federal law for non-citizens to vote in federal elections... This bill did not change that at all... The Crenshaw motion (https://crenshaw.house.gov/uploadedfiles/mtr_hr1.pdf) would have merely added the following language to the bill:

SEC. 11003. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.

This would have no legal ramifications at all for communities that vote to allow non-citizens to participate in local elections. The federal government does not determine who can vote in local elections.
 
I'm in favor of voter registration and providing I.D. when you do vote. If not how do you know who is voting and how many times they vote. Why would anyone see this as a problem. It's liberal political hype to claim that is voter supression.
American voter turnout is down because younger people do not vote, have less interest, all ages seem to be disinchanted with what our Congress does,(nothing mostly) and agrees with you son, "why vote, they do what they do".
Time for Term Limits.

I don't have a problem with it, but it won't help voter turnout. If mail in ballots, early voting, etc. haven't increased voter turnout, this won't. I tend to agree that this bill is nothing more than to hype voter suppression propaganda utilized by the Democrats than to increase voter turnout.

If this registration requires proof of American citizenship when registering, that would be a good thing. Along with the ID to prove whom you are would also be good. I have no problems with any of that.
 
So it is your contention that the only enumerated rights we have are the ones the founders thought of in the first 10?

You gotta be kidding me.

Enumerated doesnt mean what you apparently think it does. As was shown to you earlier, the word simply means to determine how many of something there are. That means every time an amendment recognized another right of the people, it became enumerated and given a number.

The right to vote is the 15th enumerated right in the Constitution. It is just as valid as the 4th or the 8th.

The founders werent infallible geniuses.....they didnt think of everything, and even gave us the mechanism to take care of those things they didnt think of.

I know exactly what enumerated means, as applied to The Constitution.

Unenumerated rights - Wikipedia
 
Because your bizarre take that voting is akin to buying theater tickets is pretty much all that needs to be said.

If you don't know what voter suppression is, the internet can help you out: Voter suppression in the United States. Go to town.



The "right of citizens of the United States to vote" is explicitly referenced in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution.

The right of citizens to vote? So, then, a new born can vote?

What is WRONG with you?
 
Yes. By definition. Another good analogy is yacht manufacturers are suppressing yacht ownership by only allowing the extremely wealthy to afford them. That way, they get to make a profit and these businesses are able to survive. Of course, going to the movies and purchasing yachts are not rights guaranteed by the constitution, and voting is not a business. If every American has a right to vote, then it is voter suppression to make voting even a little bit more difficult for Americans with less money and fewer resources. Making it easier for these Americans to vote is by definition reducing voter suppression.

I bolded and highlighted the key point of understanding that you and everyone needs to grasp.

First, read that phrase. It is wrong.

Every American does NOT have the "right" to vote. There are limitations of age and conduct.

To vote at any particular polling place, there are limitations of residence.

In some sates, felons are stripped of the right to vote.

Modern science tells up with pretty sound foundation that the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. That's probably why it's harder to learn after that age.

With this in mind, what is the goal of the Democrat Party? To lower the voting age to 16.

Once again, the Democrat party rejects Science to achieve its goals.

At What Age Is The Brain Fully Developed? - Mental Health Daily
<sniop>
It is widely debated as to which age the brain is considered “fully mature” or developed. In the past, many experts believed that the brain may have been done developing in the mid to late teens.

Then along came some evidence to suggest that development may last until at least age 20.

These days, a consensus of neuroscientists agree that brain development likely persists until at least the mid-20s – possibly until the 30s.
<snip>
 
The problem is that the states make it difficult if not impossible for people to get the kind of ID's that the state requires to be able to vote. I Wisco where I live they first tried to makde people pay for their ID's which the courts ruled was unconstitutional as it was a poll tax. What the state, which is controlled by the GOP did then did was not tell people they could get ID's without paying the normal fee if they were getting ID's to vote. The courts then to ld them to tell people, but they continued to not ell them until after the election had taken place. Wiscon also had the most restrictive ID laws which allowed for only four types of IDS. They did not include military ID's or Vet's ID. IN the first election after the ID law went into effect in Wisco the estimate was that over 200 thousand voters were excluded from voting. So that is how the GOP uses voter ID to suppress voters.

To introduce some information from the real world:

Photo ID Required
<snip>
Do I Need A Special Voter ID Card?
There is not a separate “Voter ID” card. There are several forms of Photo ID, which you may already have, that can be used to vote.

Anyone with a valid Wisconsin driver license or Wisconsin state ID card, or any of the documents listed below, already has the photo ID they need for voting purposes.

What Can I Use As Photo ID To Vote?
The following photo IDs are acceptable for voting purposes, and can be unexpired or expired after the date of the most recent general election (currently, the November 6, 2018 election):

A Wisconsin DOT-issued driver license, even if driving privileges are revoked or suspended
A Wisconsin DOT-issued identification card
A Military ID card issued by the U.S. Uniformed Services (including retired and dependent uniformed service IDs)
A U.S. passport book or card
The following photo IDs are also acceptable for voting purposes:

A certificate of naturalization (that was issued no earlier than two years before the date of the election)
An identification card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe in Wisconsin (can be expired or unexpired)
A driver license receipt issued by Wisconsin DOT (valid for 45 days from date issued)
An identification card receipt issued by Wisconsin DOT (valid for 45 days from date issued)
A Wisconsin DMV ID Petition Process Photo Receipt (valid for 180 days from date issued)
A Veteran Affairs ID card (must be unexpired or have no expiration date)
A photo identification card issued by a Wisconsin accredited university or college, or technical college that contains the following:
Date the card was issued
Signature of student
Expiration date no later than two years after date of issuance (card may be expired)
The university or college ID must be accompanied by a separate document that proves enrollment, such as a tuition fee receipt, enrollment verification letter, or class schedule. Enrollment verification document can be shown electronically.
Is There Anyone Who Does Not Need To Provide A Photo ID?
Yes. The following electors do NOT need to provide a Photo ID:

Confidential electors are always exempt from Photo ID requirements. Confidential electors have applied for this status with their municipal clerk, and have presented a court order, a letter from law enforcement, a letter from the staff of a domestic abuse shelter, or the staff of an agency assisting victims of domestic abuse
Active Military and Permanent Overseas voters are not required to provide a Photo ID when they vote by absentee ballot, but if they vote in-person, they must present Photo ID
Indefinitely confined voters, if a voter has a hard time getting to the polls on Election Day due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability they can request a ballot be sent to them. Indefinitely confined voters do not need to show a Photo ID when voting by absentee ballot. If they vote in person, they must present a Photo ID.
Voters in special care facilities can provide a witness signature on their absentee ballot certificate envelope in substitute for showing Photo ID; if they vote in-person, they must present a Photo ID

What Will The Poll Worker Be Looking At On My Photo ID?
Elector’s Photograph: The photograph must reasonably resemble the elector

Elector’s Name: The elector’s name must conform to the name on their voter registration; conform does not mean that the name must be identical to the name on the voter registration

An Expiration Date: If the ID has an expiration date, it must meet the expiration requirements listed above
<snip>
 
Yo look at different programs and pick one that meets your needs. Companies will certainly make them available if there is a market for them. If you have a non-partisan committee setting up new districts, they can choose one that is non-partisan. I know conservatives want districts like in my state where the last election the GOP got 45% of the votes for our assembly but got over 55% of the seats. That is called gerrymandering and the GOP in the state is fighting to keep the gerrymandered districts in court.

So, your answer seems to be that people will create the computer programs, people will select the computer programs, people will interpret the results put forth by the computer programs and people will implement the computer- programmed boundaries.

What will be the selection process to install the people will be involved in these processes?
 
Voting must be restricted to the qualified, but it is still a right. In states where mail in votes are a thing, the ballots are only mailed to citizens with a physical address. I have not heard of a single case of someone ineligible to vote stealing the mailed ballot from someone else's mailbox and forging their information in order to vote. It just doesn't happen. "Stolen votes" is a GOP canard and is not an actual problem in any US state. History has shown that non-citizens, felons, and the underage simply don't illegally vote in any significant numbers, even if they have an easy opportunity to do so.

Haven't heard of any?

Here you go:

Texas Prosecuted 15 Illegal Voting Cases But None Involved Impersonation | The Texas Tribune

New Details in Dallas Mail-In Ballot Fraud Investigation - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

Texas Senate panel targets mail-in ballot fraud after high-profile case | The Texas Tribune

Florida Democrats on defense amid election fraud investigation

Glad I could help.

There's an old saying that is embraced by our political parties:

"Anything worth worth winning is worth cheating for".
 

15 votes?? If you have to choose between creating byzantine rules which reduce voter turnout in poorer districts by a huge margin and making voting easier even though it allows 15 instances of voter fraud, the reasonable course of action is to allow those 15 instances of voter fraud. Solving this "problem" creates bigger problems.
 
Was there any measure taken anywhere that culls out a particular demographic to be "suppressed"?

What was the outcome of the election that supports your idea that a critical demographic was suppressed?

Answered in the link I provided and by any web search you might bother to do.

That's okay. I'll leave you with your denial.
 
Voting Rights Bill Passes House on Pure Party-Line Vote
I have head McConnell say it is the Dems trying to steal elections, but I really do not see what is wrong with the bill. It makes the right to vote the law of the land by registering all legal voters. It makes voting easier for everyone by early voting and on site registering, something my state already has. It lets us know who is donating huge sums of money to both parties. It outlaws gerrymandering by both parties and gets the states back to one man one vote concept that everyone should agree with. So exactly how does it hurt your party and help the other? It would seem that the party with the best candidate and the best platform would in elections, not who can eliminate the most voters from the other party or set up districts to make sure your party wins even when they lose, something that both parties have done in the past with gerrymandering. So what is wrong with the bill?

Ummmmmmmmm. Maybe because it is that you see the world through partisan glasses. Why would we expect a partisan liberal to think there could be anything wrong with a partisan liberal bill?
 
Uh yeah, that practice would be incredibly problematic in the context of voting rights. The fact that the right views such things as even remotely analogous encapsulates the entirety of the problem.

There is no problem. IF you're a US citizen and IF you are in the proper place to vote, you can vote. Only one side adamantly opposes any mechanism to make such determinations.
 
Back
Top Bottom