mail in voting

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2020, 12:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So now we’ve reached the point of this thread where you’re talking smack against Americans simply for living in an age of modern day conveniences like indoor plumbing instead of walking barefoot in the snow, uphill both ways through the holler to use the outhouse.

DAMN THOSE CONVENIENCES AND ANYONE SEDUCED BY THEM!

Let's try this:

I view mail in voting much as I do Handicapped Parking. Those that need it should have it, those that do not, should not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you always should. 

[fredtoast]

(06-11-2020, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this:

I view mail in voting much as I do Handicapped Parking. Those that need it should have it, those that do not, should not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you always should. 

Exactly.  Who the hell wants to do something in an efficient easy manner?

Some of my neighbors have bought chain saws to cut down trees instead of using axes.  It is like they want to cut down trees but they don't want to sacrifice for it. And they all have electric drills instead of hand augers.

This new generation just doesn't appreciate doing things the slow complicated difficult way.  It is like they think they have something better to do than stand in line all day to vote.

[*bfine32*]

(06-10-2020, 06:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not trying to start a fight.  Just trying to understand what the **** you meant and what it had to do with mail in voting.  

(06-10-2020, 08:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But as long as you're not trying to pick a fight and honestly think I do those things to go vote we can continue to have civil discourse. If not feel free to discuss me with Dino and Breech. 

(06-11-2020, 06:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.  Who the hell wants to do something in an efficient easy manner?

Some of my neighbors have bought chain saws to cut down trees instead of using axes.  It is like they want to cut down trees but they don't want to sacrifice for it. And they all have electric drills instead of hand augers.

This new generation just doesn't appreciate doing things the slow complicated difficult way.  It is like they think they have something better to do than stand in line all day to vote.

Discuss it with Breech and Dino

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-11-2020, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this:

I view mail in voting much as I do Handicapped Parking. Those that need it should have it, those that do not, should not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you always should. 

So if I have the freedom to choose an option that’s right for me, I shouldn’t have that freedom to choose? Great f’n answer, bro. I think you’ve just encapsulated the conservative’s approach to voting, “Voting: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you always should.”



Ever use a microwave instead of building a fire to heat up some food? Well, just because you can doesn’t mean you should.

[BmorePat87]

End of the day, there is no argument to be made against mail ballots. There’s no evidence of wide spread fraud and there’s too many examples of localities making it harder for groups, particularly minorities, to vote in person. Why should someone wait 3 hours in line when you can mail it in?

People have sought to suppress the minority vote for decades. The VRA sought to prevent that. After SCOTUS dismantled part of it, Republicans went to work to make it harder for minorities to vote. Can we just acknowledge reality?

There’s no reason to debate this. There no legitimate argument against it. It’s an obvious reform that is necessary given the political climate.

[hollodero]

(06-11-2020, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It also should be noted, though, that the 2A was written at a time when there were no police forces and we weren't planning on having a full-time standing land force. Our constitution provides for a permanent navy, but not army. The army has to be reauthorized every two years because the FFs didn't like the idea of a permanent army. So law enforcement and defense were left up to the citizenry at the time, but it is no longer the case. This context is often neglected when discussing the 2A.

I learn a lot here.
So it's even more outdated then.

(06-11-2020, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The EC isn't responsible for the two-party system.

Fair point. I do think, however, that it is indirectly responsible. A state-by-state majority voting system would be quite unfathomable without a quantifying entity like electors, and said system imho is the major culprit when it comes to the two-party system.

(06-11-2020, 08:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Even if we went to the popular vote we would remain a two-party country. There are a number of reasons for it which includes the first-past-the-post, winner-take-all system as well as our ridiculously under representative legislature (the number of Representatives has stayed the same sine 1911 or so, while our population is 361% of what it was at the time). For instance, were we to have a lower chamber that was as proportional as the Austrian National Council, we would have a House of 6858 people.

Interesting number. However, I guess you made that pont once a few years back and I remember me responding that I can hardly think of anyone who looks at congress and thinks, oh golly I wished there were 10 times more of those people.
In the end, I guess it makes some sense to cap the number of representatives at a certain point, or else it just turns inert and chaotic. You don't really want a debate of 5.000 house members.

[hollodero]

(06-11-2020, 10:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Depends on who you ask. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being a protection of the right of the individual to own a firearm is a recent invention (Heller 2008 and McDonald 2010). For the longest time it was interpreted as protecting the states from the federal government in being able to regulate an armed citizenry. 

Of course, the fact that our constitution is so open to interpretation causes some issues.

Sure does. Had a whole impeachment procedure that made this painfully clear.

(06-11-2020, 10:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's a lot of good suggestions for reform for SCOTUS. I don't agree with elections

Yeah, me neither. It would just be consistent. Why do you want to secure the independence of one branch (by separate elections) and the same argument does not go for the other branch.

(06-11-2020, 10:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: but Buttigieg suggested expanding the bench to include a rotating group of justices with the new justices being selected unanimously by the existing justices.   

That would make some sense maybe, but I also see the danger of it getting even more partisan. Conservative and liberal judges would face quite a lot of pressure to vote for according judges, wouldn't they.
But sure, the current system is not that ideal either, eg. it makes sheer luck a very decisive factor for the future. (The luck of course being that many judges retire or die during a certain president's tenure.)

(06-11-2020, 10:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: There's still significant disenfranchisement, even with people who are "allowed" to vote. Keeping minorities off voter rolls, delaying registration, closing voting stations to ensure long lines, discouraging voting, not closing business for voting days to hurt lower income voters, etc. 

Yeah when I talked about four million unblemished citizens not allowed to vote I was referring to Puerto Rico et al., a topic I learned interests no one on the right or the left or on these boards, it only makes my head spin. In Puerto Rico, you even have the audacity to put meaningless ballots there on election day, so people can give their meaningless votes just for the lols of it. Imho that's the peak of mockery.

But sure your point about systematic disenfranchisement is well taken and on the list of problems I would rank it as a solid number two.

[hollodero]

(06-11-2020, 06:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's try this:

I view mail in voting much as I do Handicapped Parking. Those that need it should have it, those that do not, should not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you always should. 

But this comparison makes limited sense, imho. A handicapped parking space takes away from the existing parking space, often the "best" spots really, making its reservation for the handicapped an act of solidarity.
Mail in ballots, however, are not an act of solidarity. If someone uses it, he does not take away anyone else's opportunity in any way shape or form to use it.

[BmorePat87]

(06-12-2020, 02:27 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah when I talked about four million unblemished citizens not allowed to vote I was referring to Puerto Rico et al., a topic I learned interests no one on the right or the left or on these boards, it only makes my head spin. In Puerto Rico, you even have the audacity to put meaningless ballots there on election day, so people can give their meaningless votes just for the lols of it. Imho that's the peak of mockery.

But sure your point about systematic disenfranchisement is well taken and on the list of problems I would rank it as a solid number two.

Wasn't sure which group you were specifically referring to. 4m is also the number of disenfranchised felons. 

All of our territories should have the minimum 3 electoral votes as well as representation in Congress. They'd likely all go Democratic, though, so you won't see 75% of the states or 66% of Congress backing the necessary amendment needed to change that. 

The FF never envisioned we'd have these territories, and unfortunately that means an amendment to fix it. 

[GMDino]

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2020, 09:08 AM)GMDino Wrote:

They're lucky they don't have to walk 8 hours.

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2020, 02:14 AM)hollodero Wrote: I learn a lot here.
So it's even more outdated then.

Oh yeah. This is why I am often advocating for a new constitution.Even our founding fathers only expected us to get about 20 years out of the document. This September we'll be at 231 years and 28 years since the most recent amendment.

(06-12-2020, 02:14 AM)hollodero Wrote: Fair point. I do think, however, that it is indirectly responsible. A state-by-state majority voting system would be quite unfathomable without a quantifying entity like electors, and said system imho is the major culprit when it comes to the two-party system.

The two-party system affected the electoral college, not the other way around. The intention of the popularly elected electoral college worked where local districts would vote for their electors to make the decision for their behalf. The federal government told the states they could choose electors however they saw fit, so the two-party system that existed in state governments said "let's make it so it's winner take all" in all but a couple of states. So the two-party system corrupted the electoral college rather than the electoral college creating the problematic two-party system.

(06-12-2020, 02:14 AM)hollodero Wrote: Interesting number. However, I guess you made that pont once a few years back and I remember me responding that I can hardly think of anyone who looks at congress and thinks, oh golly I wished there were 10 times more of those people.
In the end, I guess it makes some sense to cap the number of representatives at a certain point, or else it just turns inert and chaotic. You don't really want a debate of 5.000 house members.

Oh, I'm definitely not advocating for that many representatives, but there is a lot of middle ground between 435 and 6858. I have lots of thoughts on congressional district reform that could create a more representative and democratic system that could also break the stranglehold the two-party system has on us. But making things more democratic is too radical for most people and the people currently in power definitely want nothing to do with it.

[hollodero]

(06-12-2020, 02:52 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wasn't sure which group you were specifically referring to. 4m is also the number of disenfranchised felons. 

All of our territories should have the minimum 3 electoral votes as well as representation in Congress. They'd likely all go Democratic, though, so you won't see 75% of the states or 66% of Congress backing the necessary amendment needed to change that. 

The FF never envisioned we'd have these territories, and unfortunately that means an amendment to fix it. 

So, the US denies US citizens the basic civic right to vote because it might be inconvenient for one of the major parties.
Just one of these moments where I'd urge folks to take a step back and consider how this looks from the outside. If Iraq did something like that, there'd be outrage. How giving your citizens the right to vote is not regarded as a pure necessity that demands 100% agreement is, well, harrowing.

Regarding felons, sure I guess most of them should keep or retain their right to vote, but at least I can see a somewhat legit counterpoint. With Guam or Puerto Rico, I can not. Many of these people get to "fight for democracy' on the US' behalf while not living democracy themselves. This is as cynical as it gets.

[Benton]

(06-12-2020, 11:33 AM)hollodero Wrote: So, the US denies US citizens the basic civic right to vote because it might be inconvenient for one of the major parties.
Just one of these moments where I'd urge folks to take a step back and consider how this looks from the outside. If Iraq did something like that, there'd be outrage. How giving your citizens the right to vote is not regarded as a pure necessity that demands 100% agreement is, well, harrowing.

Regarding felons, sure I guess most of them should keep or retain their right to vote, but at least I can see a somewhat legit counterpoint. With Guam or Puerto Rico, I can not. Many of these people get to "fight for democracy' on the US' behalf while not living democracy themselves. This is as cynical as it gets.

Republicans by and large are a minority to Democrats. Nationally and state by state. Republicans have gained a lot of ground, but there's still fewer of them. But they manage to win through a focused effort to work the system, whether that's gerrymandering, making it difficult for voters to access polls or getting changes to election laws.

And for the most part, I used to think that was ok. No party needs to be in total control. Our current condition is a good example of that. Republicans have had majority control more often in the last few decades, and every time they e used it to benefit upper income earners and at the detriment of lower income earners.

[hollodero]

(06-12-2020, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh yeah. This is why I am often advocating for a new constitution.Even our founding fathers only expected us to get about 20 years out of the document. This September we'll be at 231 years and 28 years since the most recent amendment.

Oh boy. Yeah at least some serious amendmends would be in order. But good luck with advocating that, I guess most will see that as some form of treason.

(06-12-2020, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The two-party system affected the electoral college, not the other way around. The intention of the popularly elected electoral college worked where local districts would vote for their electors to make the decision for their behalf. The federal government told the states they could choose electors however they saw fit, so the two-party system that existed in state governments said "let's make it so it's winner take all" in all but a couple of states. So the two-party system corrupted the electoral college rather than the electoral college creating the problematic two-party system.

OK, I'd just say the one would not exist without the other. The EC was corruptable in that sense, in a way a different system would not have been.

(06-12-2020, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh, I'm definitely not advocating for that many representatives, but there is a lot of middle ground between 435 and 6858. I have lots of thoughts on congressional district reform that could create a more representative and democratic system that could also break the stranglehold the two-party system has on us. But making things more democratic is too radical for most people and the people currently in power definitely want nothing to do with it.

But isn't there a danger that if you have 1000+ representatives, they would choose some big dogs among themselves to lead the way? You'd have some kind of second informal EC in congress...
...I'm aware you already have caucuses, which does point in that direction.

As for reform, sure the US system gets a lot of fun made out of and it probably starts with the congressional districts that are gerrymandered in an extremely bizarre way. Politicians choosing their voters instead of the other way round, they say.
They would probably need to get abandoned as a whole, merged into big district where a 10%, or 15 0r 20% hurdle represents one congressman. You might get some third parties that way. And so on and so on, I guess we already talked about that before as well, in reality I guess nothing will change, for nothing is as bipartisan as keeping the two-party system alive and well. (Except that many dream of an effective one-party system and hope even the one alternative goes away, I guess.)

Didn't you tell me about some states that at least want to get rid of the winner takes all system in presidential elections? I guess Maine does that, that at least would be something. If California or other states had that, it at least would make sense to go vote there again.

[*bfine32*]

I ask you, but I doubt you will: to go back and reread this thread and determine which side has attacked the poster more so than addressing the subject (save your biased selective quote). Then ask yourself which "side" are you on. And this ask yourself why this forum has degraded so much.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-12-2020, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I ask you, but I doubt you will: to go back and reread this thread and determine which side has attacked the poster more so than addressing the subject (save your biased selective quote). Then ask yourself which "side" are you on. And this ask yourself why this forum has degraded so much.

Be careful, brother. You don’t want to get a hernia lifting a victim card that big all by yourself.


And I ask you to read this thread again to determine which side wants to suppress American’s freedom to vote because it’s too convenient in your opinion.

[hollodero]

(06-12-2020, 09:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I ask you, but I doubt you will: to go back and reread this thread and determine which side has attacked the poster more so than addressing the subject (save your biased selective quote). Then ask yourself which "side" are you on. And this ask yourself why this forum has degraded so much.

Yeah I don't know if you're talking to me specifically, but I too am guilty of disagreeing with you on several points, so I'm quite sure I'm on the "bad" side then. Your post sets such a shining example of a substantial, fact-oriented contribution. As a non-conservative, non-bfine I cannot compete with that and even thought there was an interesting debate going on, but thanks for setting me straight by showing it's actually degraded and still all about you.

Also, I'm outta here. My derangement simply makes comments like those get on my nerves too much. A positive step towards less degradation, I'm sure.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2020, 11:36 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Be careful, brother.  You don’t want to get a hernia lifting a victim card that big all by yourself.


And I ask you to read this thread again to determine which side wants to suppress American’s freedom to vote because it’s too convenient in your opinion.

Read it all and You'll have to show me where I've advocated "voter suppression"> I've simply said that those who have the ability to show up and vote in person should. 

No victim; just asking folks to reflect instead of deflect.

[*bfine32*]

(06-12-2020, 11:54 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah I don't know if you're talking to me specifically, but I too am guilty of disagreeing with you on several points, so I'm quite sure I'm on the "bad" side then. Your post sets such a shining example of a substantial, fact-oriented contribution. As a non-conservative, non-bfine I cannot compete with that and even thought there was an interesting debate going on, but thanks for setting me straight by showing it's actually degraded and still all about you.

Also, I'm outta here. My derangement simply makes comments like those get on my nerves too much. A positive step towards less degradation, I'm sure.

Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing on an issue.